Appeal No. 2006-1990 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/678,231
Claims 1-18, 20, 21, 23-28, 30, 31 and 33-58 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nasca in view
of Deeg.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23-25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33-
35, 37-46 and 51-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of Deeg.
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 October 20,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the supplemental brief (filed March 2, 2005)
and reply brief (filed December 19, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007