Appeal No. 1998-2466 Page 3
Application No. 08/508,747
Tysen et al. (Tysen) 5,497,422 Mar. 5,
1996
Claims 1, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Haber in view of Tysen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed April 14, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's
brief (Paper No. 14, filed January 23, 1998) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments actually made by
appellant 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).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007