Appeal 2007-0229
Application 10/968,436
3. Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill.
4. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill and further in view of Jacober.
5. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill and further in view of Kirkendall.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting (1) claims 1-2 and 13-14 as anticipated by Davis; (2) claims 3
and 4 as unpatentable over Davis; (3) claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-14 as unpatentable
over Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill; (4) claim 7 as unpatentable over
Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill and further in view of Jacober; and (5) claims
10-12 as unpatentable over Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill and further in view
of Kirkendall. The dispositive issue is whether the cited references disclose a
closed top and at least one side wall having a first opening proximate the top of the
housing and a second opening proximate the bottom of the housing.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. 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 Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013