Appeal No. 1999-2211 Page 3
Application No. 08/620,427
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e ) as2
anticipated by Bott.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 18, mailed October 19, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper
No. 17,
filed September 11, 1998) and supplement to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 23, filed July 9, 2001) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst. 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).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
2It is unclear as to why the examiner relies upon 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
instead of § 102(b), as the Bott patent issued almost three years prior to the
filing of the application before us on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007