Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 3
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Robertson.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robertson in view of Frensch.
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. 28, mailed
October 29, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
24, filed July 9, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed
December 31, 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 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 examiner's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007