Appeal No. 2006-2406 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/745,113
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed April 3, 2006)
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed February 22, 2006) and reply
brief (filed May 31, 2006) 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 rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. 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 rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007