Appeal No. 2000-0963
Application No. 08/736,883
1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually
made by appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner indicates how he finds the claimed invention
to be obvious over the teachings of Forcier ’649 [final rejection,
pages 3-17, incorporated into examiner’s answer]. With respect to
each of the claims on appeal, appellants argue that the examiner’s
findings are not supported by the disclosure of Forcier ’649
[brief, pages 11-40]. The examiner breaks down appellants’
arguments into three key arguments, and the examiner indicates his
disagreement with these three arguments [answer, pages 4-6].
Appellants respond that the examiner’s findings are incorrect and
unsupported [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellants. Since
appellants have addressed the examiner’s incorrect findings in
great detail, and since we agree with appellants’ arguments, we
will not detail the extensive arguments again in this decision. We
simply note that we agree with all of appellants’ arguments set
forth in the briefs, and based on these arguments, the examiner’s
rejection, as formulated, does not establish a prima facie case of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007