Appeal No. 1998-1389 Page 3
Application No. 08/553232
Claims 30-48, 50, 52, and 53 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brotsky in view of Smith.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 17, mailed July 17, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper
No. 16, filed April 25, 1997) and the Response to Request for
Additional Information (Paper No. 21, filed May 15, 2000) for
the appellants' arguments thereagainst . Only those arguments2
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See
37 CFR
§ 1.192(a).
2At the Oral hearing, appellants notified the Board that a Request For
Certificate Of Correction of the applied Brotsky patent, had recently been
filed with the PTO. At the request of the Board, a copy of the Request For
Certificate of Correction was provided to us. We note that the Certificate of
Correction was issued on January 9, 2001. In addition, at the Oral hearing,
the Board requested appellants point out where the limitations of claim 49 are
found in the specification. Appellants' response (paper No. 21, filed May 15,
2000) has been considered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007