Appeal No. 2004-0123
Application No. 09/118,922 Page 3
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Daum and
Tsukagoshi.
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. 19, mailed
March 11, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed
December 20, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed May 9,
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 briefs along with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007