Appeal 2006-3382
Application 10/461,709
Group II: The Examiner rejected claims 8, 15-16, 19, 22, 31, 36, and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Goluszek in view of Wang.
Group III: The Examiner rejected claims 35, and 43-45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Goluszek.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Goluszek US 6,211,657 Apr. 3, 2001
Wang US 6,518,738 Feb. 11, 2003
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Goluszek, or rendered obvious by Goluszek alone, or in combination with
Wang, for reasons to be discussed more fully below. The Examiner
contends that each of the three groups of claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
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 Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).2
We affirm the rejections.
2 Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately
to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group,
except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013