Appeal No. 2006-1605
Application No. 09/470,741
unpatentable over the combination of Vetro et al., Ng, Bose et
al., Dugad et al. and Rosman et al.
Rather than reiterating the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs1
and the Examiner’s Answer.2 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
Briefs 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
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejections. We have likewise reviewed and taken into
consideration Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in the rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree with
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on June 02, 2003. Appellants filed a Reply
Brief on August 19, 2003.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on July 15, 2003. Examiner mailed
an office communication on February 22, 2006, stating that the Reply Brief has
been noted and acknowledged.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007