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 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007