Appeal No. 2006-1798
Application No. 09/966,413
over Pappas in view of Chambers.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
answer (mailed July 12, 2005) and final rejection (mailed January 24, 2005) for the
Examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed
May 4, 2005) and reply brief (filed September 12, 2005) for the Appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant 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).
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 the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Appellant’s 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.
We note at the outset that the only claims specifically argued by appellant are
claim 1 (the only independent claim before us on appeal) and dependent claim 4.
accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group, and will separately
address claim 4.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013