Appeal No. 2005-2244 Page 3
Application No. 10/157,386
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’ briefs, and
to the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, for
the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. We deem such
arguments to be waived by Appellants [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) effective
September 13, 2004 replacing 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Luse does not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1-22.
Accordingly, we reverse. For purposes of our discussion we treat claim 1 as
exemplary of all the claims on appeal.
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 5, 2004. Appellants filed a reply
brief on February 1, 2005. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on
January 13, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007