Appeal No. 2002-1380
Application No. 08/786,270 Page 3
Claims 58 and 74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomas in view of either Mischler or
Fisher.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 15, mailed
September 5, 2000) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed April 19, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
19, filed February 22, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed
June 21, 2001) 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 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 and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007