Appeal No. 2005-0289 Page 3
Application No. 09/491,841
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29 and
39 stand rejected under 102(e)as being anticipated by Ellinwood.
Claims 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ellinwood.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ellinwood in view of Tinnerman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed January 28,
2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant's brief (filed August 28, 2003) and
reply brief (filed March 29, 2004) 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 § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
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 indefiniteness, anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007