Appeal No. 2004-2334
Application No. 09/888,145
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
brief (Paper No. 11, filed July 14, 2003) and reply brief (Paper
No. 14, filed May 5, 2004) for appellant's views to the contrary.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant's
specification and claims, the applied prior art references, and
the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Before addressing the prior art rejections, we note that in
the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the brief appellant has
set forth several groupings of the claims to be considered on
appeal. However, in the ensuing pages of the brief, appellant
has presented arguments directed to both the independent claims
on appeal and certain of the dependent claims contained in the
various claim groupings mentioned above. See, e.g., arguments on
pages 5-7 of the brief. Notwithstanding the inconsistency of
appellant's actions in the brief, we are compelled to review the
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007