Appeal No. 2003-0325
Application No. 08/775,077 Page 3
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Loucks in view of Haber.
Claims 3, 4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Loucks in view of Graziano.
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Loucks.
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. 29, mailed
June 14, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 28, filed
April 3, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 30, filed July 11,
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 anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007