Appeal No. 2006-0965
Application No. 10/827,051
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 24-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Vreeland.
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yates in view of Buchler.
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 31, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed September 12, 2005) and reply brief (filed January
9, 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 C.F.R. § 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 anticipation and 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 24-27 under
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013