Appeal No. 2002-2082
Application No. 09/289,393 Page 3
Claims 5-7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagata in view of Morimasa1.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed May
2, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 15, filed March
25, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed July 2, 2002) 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 briefs 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 rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
1 The examiner (answer, pages 2 and 4) lists and refers to several
additional references not relied upon in the rejection of the claims. On page
6 of the answer, the examiner refers to a number of references of record that
have not been applied in the rejection under appeal. These references will be
given no consideration since they were not included in the statement of the
rejection. See Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1993). In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007