Appeal No. 2004-0731 Page 3
Application No. 09/957,059
Claims 12 and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Norimatsu in view of Crossley and
Rodriguez.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 20, mailed
July 29, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to appellants' brief3 (Paper No. 16, filed
June 2, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed September 8,
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.
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 rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
3 Resubmitted Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007