Appeal No. 2004-0984
Application No. 09/501,970 Page 3
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weider in view of Lansang and Sayler.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 27, mailed
December 2, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 26,
filed August 25, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed
December 8, 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.
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 briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007