Appeal No. 1998-1814 Page 4
Application No. 08/347,814
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mantz (‘273) in view of
either the prior art cited by appellants on page 19, lines 15-
20 of the specification (reference to US Patent 4,765,736 to
Gallagher) or Cassidy.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 19, mailed January 12, 1998) for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 18, filed October 9, 1997) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments
actually made by the appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which the appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered. See
37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007