relative persuasiveness of 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)].
Independent claims 18 and 22 have a similar recitation
with respect to modifying an error value based on an effective
spot area value that we considered above with respect to
claims 1 and 15. The examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103 relies on the same deficient teachings of Lin that we
considered above. Therefore, the examiner’s analysis does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the same
reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 20 and 22-24 based on the
teachings of Lin taken alone.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 15-20 and
22-24 is reversed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007