Ex Parte RAPP et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2003-0873                                                        
          Application No. 08/896,245                                 Page 3           

               Claims 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 26-28, and 30 stand rejected             
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view           
          of Montulli.                                                                
               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. 23, mailed            
          November 29, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                 
          support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.              
          22, filed May 1, 2002) 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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007