Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 3
Claims 3, 15, 26, 42-51, 54, 57, 72, 79, 80, 84-91, 96 and
98-102 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed
March 19, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief1 (Paper No. 13, filed
January 31, 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 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 obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
1
1 A supplement brief was filed (Paper No. 18, filed September 28, 2002)
to provide statements relating to the Real Party in Interest and Related
Appeals and Interferences.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007