Appeal No. 2001-0024
Application No. 08/827,285 Page 3
Claims 3-9, 11-17, 19-25, and 35-41 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bigus in view of Marks.
Claims 27-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bigus in view of Marks and Parrish.
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
December 6, 1999) and the final rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed
March 22, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 14, filed
September 27, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed February
9, 2000) 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 briefs 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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007