Appeal No. 2006-2336
Application No. 09/849,916
Rejection At Issue
Claims 1 through 11, 13 through 16 and 18 through 20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Henrikson.
Rather than reiterate 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 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
rejection, the arguments in support of the rejection and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on September 28, 2005. Appellants filed a
Reply Brief on January 19, 2006.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on November 18, 2005. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on February 1, 2006 stating that the Reply
Brief has been entered and considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007