Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior art
rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs
along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer. Although Appellant has
nominally asserted (Brief, page 4) the separate patentability
of each of the claims on appeal, separate arguments have been
provided only for independent claims 13, 15, and 22. We will
consider the appealed claims separately only to the extent
that separate arguments are of record in this appeal.
Dependent claims 14, 16-19, 21, 23-26, and 28 have not been
argued separately in the Briefs and, accordingly, will stand
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007