Appeal No. 2002-0366 Page 3
Application No. 08/803,692
(filed Dec. 22, 1995)
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 21-24, 27, 35-38, and 41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tang'365 in view of
Tang'173. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
28, mailed January 17, 2001) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief
(Paper No. 27, filed November 1, 2000) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst. Only those arguments actually made by appellant
have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant
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 rejection advanced
by the examiner, 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,
appellant's arguments set forth in the brief along with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007