Appeal No. 2003-2102 Page 3
Application No. 09/254,723
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vazvan in view of Heinonen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 17, mailed
November 19, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief2 (Paper No.
16, filed June 14, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed
Jan. 28, 2003) 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 briefs 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 rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
2 Supplemental brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007