Appeal No. 1998-0526
Application 08/395,335
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 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)].
Claims 46-69 depend from one or more of the
independent claims discussed above. The examiner relies on
Georgiou for teaching all the limitations of these independent
claims as noted above. The examiner’s explanation of this
rejection does not
overcome the deficiencies of Georgiou noted above. Thus,
there
are differences between the claimed invention and the
disclosure of Georgiou which have not been properly addressed
by the examiner. The failure to address the obviousness of
these differences between the claimed invention and the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007