Appeal No. 1997-2700
Application 08/307,249
respective details thereof.
OPINION
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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007