Appeal No. 96-2022
Application No. 08/132,943
the arguments. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,
686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). 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)].
With respect to our selected representative,
independent claim 6, the examiner has pointed out the
teachings of Masuda and Foley, has pointed out the perceived
differences between this prior art and the claimed invention,
and has reasonably indicated how and why Masuda and Foley
would have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the
claimed invention. In our view, the examiner’s analysis is
sufficiently reasonable that we find that the examiner has
satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007