Appeal No. 2006-1870 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/100,901
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 February 9,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed May 23, 2005) and reply brief
(filed May 23, 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
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants'
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the determinations which
follow. We begin with the rejection of claims 1-6, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jefferies. We note at the outset that appellants argue the
claims as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007