Appeal No. 1998-2467 Page 5
Application No. 08/353,682
Claims 41-43, 45-46, 48-51, and 53 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz in view of
Shepard, Eastman, and Riley.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 20, mailed April 28, 1997) and the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 28, mailed March 3, 1998) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants' brief (Paper No. 27, filed January 23, 1998) for
appellants' arguments thereagainst. 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).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007