Appeal No. 2001-1627
Application No. 09/289,420 Page 3
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
clearly anticipated by Bang.
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
November 21, 2000) and the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed
March 28, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed
December 4, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed January
24, 2001) 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 anticipation 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 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