Appeal No. 2001-1185
Application No. 08/915,597 Page 3
Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sowles in view of Hatano and further in
view of Azer.
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. 21, mailed
September 27, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
20, filed September 11, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 23,
filed November 27, 2000) 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
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007