Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 3
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahlm in view of Poland and further in view of
Hellsberg.
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. 15, mailed
March 15, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed
December 21, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed May 17,
1999) 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 rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007