Appeal No. 1999-0133
Application No. 08/459,570 Page 3
Claims 1-15, 17-22, and 24-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal.
Claims 16 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Agrawal in view of Ha.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed
October 30, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
14, filed September 8, 1997) and reply brief2 (Paper No. 16,
filed January 5, 1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
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).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
2 We observe that the language at the end of page 6 does not correlate
with the language beginning on page 7 of the reply brief. However, because
appellants position is clear, we decline to request clarification under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(d).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007