Appeal No. 2004-0024
Application No. 09/249,922 Page 3
(Graham)
Gaus 5,604,406 Feb. 18, 1997
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gaus in view of Cockram.
Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gaus in view of Cockram and further in view of
Graham.
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. 21, mailed
December 3, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
20, filed September 19, 2002, reply brief (Paper No. 23, filed
February 3, 2003) and the Declaration of Mr. Robert J. Wood under
37 CFR §1.132 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007