Ex parte TAKEUCHI - Page 3

                 Appeal No. 1998-0915                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/441,194                                                                                                             

                 respect to claim 1 and Ipposhi in view of Seidel with respect                                                                          
                 to claim 2.                                                                                                                            
                 Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                                                                                   
                 examiner, we make reference to the briefs  and the answers for            1                                                            
                 the respective details thereof.                                                                                                        
                 We have carefully considered the subject matter on                                                                                     
                 appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the                                                                                
                 evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support                                                                         
                 for the rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken                                                                             
                 into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s                                                                          
                 arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s                                                                            
                 rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in                                                                                
                 rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answers.                                                                                          
                 It is our view, after consideration of the record before                                                                               
                 us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in                                                                            

                          1Appellant has filed a brief, a reply brief, a                                                                                
                 supplemental reply brief and a second supplemental reply brief                                                                         
                 [Paper Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 19].  The first three papers were                                                                           
                 entered and considered by the examiner, but the fourth paper                                                                           
                 was denied entry by the examiner [Paper No. 20].                                                                                       
                 Consequently, we have not considered the second supplemental                                                                           
                 reply brief in reaching our decision in this appeal.                                                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007