Appeal No. 2006-1450
Application No. 09/933,786
Rejections At Issue
A. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Groves.1
B. Claims 3-10, 13-20 and 23-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Groves and
Prioste.
Rather than reiterating the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Appeal
Brief2 and the Examiner’s Answer. 3 Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief have not been taken into consideration. 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 Examiner’s
rejection, the arguments in support of the rejection and the
1 This rejection was also reinforced by Methvin et al as evidence of what’s
well known in the art.
2 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on July 18, 2005.
3 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on September 19, 2005.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007