Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 16
Application No. 08/839,843
18 and of claim 19, which depends therefrom, as obvious over
Saito in view of Drake.
Although the examiner rejected only claims 18 and 19 as
obvious over Saito in view of Drake, we cannot help but notice
the similarity of claims 1-17 thereto. Accordingly, the examiner
and appellants might wish to reassess the patentability of these
claim in view of the combined teachings of Saito and Drake.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e)is reversed. The rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), however, is affirmed. Our affirmance is based
only on the arguments made in the brief. Arguments not made
therein are neither before us nor at issue but are considered
waived.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007