Appeal No. 2003-0289
Application No. 09/234,702 Page 3
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
May 24, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed
April 11, 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
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,
appellant's arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer. Upon
consideration of the record before us, we reverse, essentially
for the reasons set forth by appellant.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chennakeshu in view
of Sherman. We turn first to independent claims 1 and 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007