Appeal No. 2006-0384 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/041,979
2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed December 8, 2003) 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
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
brief along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow. We begin with the rejection of
claims 1-6, 10-12 and 14-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Drake. We turn first to claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007