Appeal No. 2004-0013
Application No. 09/234,889 Page 4
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. 20, mailed
April 18, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 19, filed
February 18, 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 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 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,
appellant's arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part. We note at the outset that appellants (brief, page 6) set
Dictionary.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007