Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 3
Application No. 09/089,153
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 5,
mailed April 13, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
January 16, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed
August 15, 2000) for the 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 given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part.
We observe at the outset appellant’s statement (brief, page
3): “Claims 1-9 form a single group of claims.” Notwithstanding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007