Appeal No. 2006-1797
Application No. 09/866,319
being unpatentable over the combination of Marty and Botula.
J. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Marty and Trivedi.
Rather than reiterating the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs1
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
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on April 23, 2004. Appellants filed a
Reply Brief on September 16, 2004.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on July 14, 2004. The Examiner
mailed an office communication December 10, 2004, stating that the Reply Brief
has been entered and considered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007