Appeal No. 2005-2468
Application No. 09/943,941
Claims 1-4 and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sloane in view of Harms.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed Jul. 1, 2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
brief (filed Apr. 13, 2005) and reply brief (filed Jul. 13, 2005) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
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)].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007