Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 3
Application No. 09/898,497
Claims 3, 5, 14, 16, 25 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Owensby in view of
Jones.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (mailed Feb.
27, 2004) and the answer (mailed Jan. 12, 2005) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the brief (filed Oct. 29, 2004) and reply brief (filed Mar.
14, 2005) for the 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 brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007