Appeal No. 96-1259
Application 08/201,185
independent claim 1 as being representative of the first
group, and claim 4 as being representative of the second
group.
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’ specification
and claims, the applied reference, appellants’ admitted prior
art, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner. We note that we have only considered those
arguments
made by appellants, and that any arguments not presented by
appellants are considered waived and have not been considered.
37 CFR § 1.192(a)(1995).
As a consequence of our review, we are in general
agreement with the examiner (Answer, pages 2 to 5) that the
prior art of Sindhu would have fairly taught or suggested the
invention of claims 1 to 3 on appeal. However, because we
agree with appellants (Brief, pages 3 to 4) that the applied
prior art fails to teach or suggest the recited details of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007