Appeal No. 1998-1097
Application No. 08/557,484
evidence of anticipation 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 Brief along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant in the Brief 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)].
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Senuma fully meets the invention as
recited in claim 1, but does not meet the invention as set
forth in claims 2, 4, 7, and 8. We are also of the view that
Miwa does not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 2-
8. Lastly, it is our opinion that Ito fully meets the
invention as recited in claims 9 and 10, but does not meet the
invention as set forth in claims 11 and 12. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We first consider the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Senuma.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007