Appeal No. 1999-2449
Application No. 08/745,584 Page 3
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gonzales.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Kopet.
Claims 11, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of
Greenfield.
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. 12, mailed
May 21, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 11, filed
February 22, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed July 23,
1999) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007