Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex Parte Guillen - Page 4
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2006 > Ex Parte Guillen - Page 4
Appeal No. 2006-3284
Application No. 10/061,871
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs1
and the Examiner’s Answer.2 Only those arguments actually made
by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been taken into consideration. See 37 CFR
41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration Appellant’s arguments set
forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in the rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 1, 4 through 9, 31 through 34 are
1 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on March 3, 2006. Appellant filed a Reply
Brief on July 24, 2006.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on May 22, 2006. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on August 14, 2006 stating that the Reply Brief
has been entered and considered.
4
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
