Appeal No. 2006-0598 Page 3
Application No. 09/752,072
rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed July 28, 2005)
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (filed April 11, 2005) for the
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)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection 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 claim 1. To anticipate a claim, a prior art
reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007