Appeal No. 2000-0258 Page 3
Application No. 08/577,897
Claims 2-6 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Herrig in view of Ady and Madonna.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
March 12, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 15, filed
February 1, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed May 3,
1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only those
arguments 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).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007