Appeal 2006-2843
Application 09/872,970
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 1-30, 34, and 36-40, all of the appealed claims, are rejected
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blumenau in view of
Casorso.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of the
rejection, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in
the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in appealed claims 1-23 and 36-40. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 24-30, and 34. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 19, 2005. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March, 2006, a Reply Brief was filed April 19,
2006 which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in
the communication mailed July 17, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013