Ex Parte Webster et al - Page 3

              Appeal No. 2006-0965                                                                                      
              Application No. 10/827,051                                                                                

                                                   THE REJECTIONS                                                       
                  Claims 24-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                          
              Vreeland.                                                                                                 
                     Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                                  
              unpatentable over Yates in view of Buchler.                                                               
              Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                         
              appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                          
              (mailed October 31, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                         
              rejections, and to the brief (filed September 12, 2005) and reply brief (filed January                    
              9, 2006) for the 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 C.F.R. § 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 rejections advanced by the examiner, 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, in                         
              reaching our decision, appellants' 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 make the determinations                             
              which follow.  We begin with the rejection of claims 24-27 under                                          


                                                           3                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013