Appeal No. 2006-1726
Application No. 09/725,849
and the Examiner’s Answer2. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants could have made but choose 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 anticipation and 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.
It is our view, after full consideration of the record
before us, that we agree with Appellants that claims 1, 4, 5, 8,
11-14 and 16 are not properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Takahashi. We further agree with Appellants
Brief on December 02, 2005.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on October 06, 2005. Examiner
mailed an office communication on March 07, 2006, stating that the Reply Brief
has been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007