Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 3
Claims 21, 23-25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mandel in view of Salgado.
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. 33, mailed
December 31, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
32, filed October 22, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 34, filed
February 7, 2003) 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
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007