Appeal No. 2002-1784
Application No. 09/583,333 Page 3
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 19, 25-27, 29, 35-37, and 41 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Dery.
Claims 4-6, 8, 14-18, 20, 28, 30, 38-40 and 42 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dery
in view of Drew.
Claims 9-12, 21-24, 31-34, and 43 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dery in view of Drew,
and further in view of Di Croce.
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. 11, mailed
March 15, 2002) and the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed July
3, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed January
14, 2002) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007