Appeal No. 1997-3974
Application No. 08/541,254
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 appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Although appellant makes several arguments against the
references individually for teachings that they are not relied
on, appellant does argue that none of the references taken
singly or in combination teaches or suggests the feature of
the claimed invention of the transducers lying loosely in the
separator holes [brief, pages 5-9]. The examiner never
addresses this particular limitation of the claimed invention.
In fact, the examiner states that “[t]he following rejections
are based on the claims without the above stated new matter”
[answer, page 6]. Thus, the examiner has admittedly ignored
the loose connection of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007