Appeal No. 2002-1319 Page 3
Application No. 08/974,971
Claims 42-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Maher in view of DeRoo and either Oh or
Boehmer.
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. 19, mailed
October 2, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 18, filed
July 16, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed November 27,
2001) for appellant’s 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
reaching our decision, appellant's arguments set forth in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007