Appeal No. 2000-0264
Application No. 08/752,624 Page 3
Claims 6-9 and 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kane in view of Lucas and Gaskill, and
further in view of Oliwa.
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. 9, mailed
April 27, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed
February 1, 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,
appellant's arguments set forth in the brief 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