Appeal 2007-0016
Application 10/700,496
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
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of the
rejections, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner as support for the rejections. 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
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Wu fully meets the invention as recited in claims 1 and 3-6. In
addition, with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are of the
opinion that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness
of the invention as set forth in appealed claim 2. We reach the opposite
1 The Appeal Brief was filed March 13, 2006. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed April 14, 2006, a Reply Brief was filed June 12,
2006 which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in
the communication mailed June 26, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013