Appeal No. 1998-1323
Application 08/252,861
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 appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Although the examiner cites three references in the
statement of the rejection, it appears that all three
references are not being relied on to reject all the indicated
claims. The examiner notes that claims 1-24 substantially
read on Takahashi [answer, page 4]. Cragun is cited only in
connection with claims 5, 6, 10-13 and 24, and Buhro is cited
only in connection with claims 14 and 18 [id., pages 5 and 6].
Therefore, it appears that the examiner bases this rejection
primarily on Takahashi with Cragun and Buhro used to meet
specific additional limitations. In fact, the examiner’s
comments make it appear that claim 1 is essentially rejected
on Takahashi taken alone.
The examiner’s explanation of this rejection is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007