Appeal No. 2006-1447 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/775,881
de Molina (Molina) 5,725,239 Mar. 10, 1998
Vermolen et al. (Vermolen) 5,924,528 Jul. 20, 1999
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Vermolen.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vermolen in view of Molina.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed October 13,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed July 29, 2005) and reply
brief (filed December 12, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007