Ex parte JORDAN - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1997-2700                                                        
          Application 08/307,249                                                      

          respective details thereof.                                                 
               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, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs along               
          with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and               
          arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answers.                  
          Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been                   
          considered in this decision.  Arguments which Appellant could               
          have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been                 
          considered [see 37 CFR  1.192(a)].                                         
               It is our view, after consideration of the record before               
          us, that the disclosure of Hunt fully meets the invention as                
          recited in claims 1-3, 8-13, 18-20, and 24.  We are also of                 
          the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill               
          in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary               

          the Reply Brief and submitted a supplemental Examiner’s Answer              
          dated February 19, 1997.                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007