Appeal No. 2004-2086 Page 3
Application No. 09/238,800
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed April 26, 2004) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief
(Paper No. 9, filed September 24, 2001) and reply brief (Paper
No. 11, filed March 5, 2002) 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 briefs
have not been considered.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and 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 examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007