Appeal No. 1997-2686 Application 08/346,635 and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; 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)]. We consider first the rejection of claims 15, 2, 9-12, 14 and 17 based on the teachings of Eggebeen and Von Behren. These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 7]. With respect to representative, independent claim 15, the examiner cites Eggebeen as teaching a drive belt for belt driven tape cartridges having a layer of high stiffness material and a layer of low stiffness material. Von Behren teaches the conventional components of a belt driven tape cartridge. The examiner asserts the obviousness of using the Eggebeen two- layer belt in the Von Behren conventional cartridge. The -6-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007