Appeal No. 2006-1431 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/386,855
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed June 8, 2005) and reply brief
(filed September 8, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by the 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 rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs 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 9-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Litwin in view of Heaton.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007