Appeal No. 2001-0331 Page 3
Application No. 09/122,982
Claims 1-11, 13-23, and 25-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 13-16, 21-23, 25-28, 33-35, and 37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoffman or
Netscape 2 or Pegasus3.
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. 13, mailed
May 17, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed
April 14, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed August 2,
2000) 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).
3 The examiner (answer, page 5) additionally objects to the
specification under 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 1302.01, and objects to the
drawing under 37 CFR § 1.83(a) as failing to fully illustrate the claims.
These objections are reviewable by way of petition to the Commissioner, and
are not properly before the Board; see MPEP Eighth Edition, Revision 1,
§ 706.01, (Feb. 2003).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007