Appeal No. 2006-3280
Application No. 09/874,152
C. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Weisser, Knoerle,
Watts and Andrews.1
D. Claims 1, 11, 21 and 28 stand rejected under double
patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Marks.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs2
and the Examiner’s Answer.3 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
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
1 We note that the Examiner previously rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Weisser, Knoerle and Watts, and
rejected claim 20 over the combination of Weisser and Knoerle alone. The
present rejection of those claims appears to contradict the Examiner’s earlier
position with regard to the teachings of Weisser and Knoerle. We will only
consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Weisser and Knoerle.
2 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on Jan. 05, 2006. Appellants filed a Reply
Brief on May 26, 2006.
3 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on March 24, 2006. The Examiner
mailed a communication on Aug. 07, 2006 indicating that the Reply Brief had
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007