Appeal No. 1999-0477 Page 3
Application No. 08/571,236
Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Biggs in view of Moreno, further in view of
Ware.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed June 9, 1998) for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant’s
brief (Paper No. 12, filed March 16, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 15, filed August 10, 1998) for the appellant’s
arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments actually made by
the appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which the appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the briefs have not been considered. See 37 CFR
1.192(a).
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007