Appeal No. 1999-0490
Application 08/335,917
of the evidence as a whole and the 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 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)].
With respect to each of independent claims 1-3, the
examiner has indicated how she has reached the conclusion of
obviousness [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues that the
examiner has ignored the conversion function recited in each
of claims 1-3 [brief, pages 4-5]. The examiner indicates that
the formula disclosed in Vuylsteke at column 9, lines 2-28 is
equivalent to the claimed function if the parameters in the
reference are given specific definitions [answer, page 4].
Appellant responds that the examiner’s formula does not equate
to the claimed formula and the definitions given by the
examiner are improper [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007