Appeal No. 2003-0886
Application No. 09/466,845 Page 3
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief
(Paper No. 15, filed August 23, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No.
18, filed January 16, 2003) 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 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,
appellant's 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.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellant. We begin
with the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chen in view of Hirano. We observe at the
outset that appellant asserts (brief, page 3) that claims 1, 4,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007