Appeal No. 2001-0526 Page 3
Application No. 08/960,236
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12, mailed
June 1, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed May
1, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed July 14, 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).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant's arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer. Upon consideration
of the record before us, we reverse.
We note at the outset that the arguments presented by
appellant (brief, pages 3, 4, 6, and 7) with respect to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007