Ex Parte Ku et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-0262                                                                             
                Application 09/925,258                                                                       
                Wilks    US 6,246,407 B1  Jun. 12, 2001                                                      
                Ohmori    US 6,292,620 B1  Sep. 18, 2001                                                     
                                                                   (filed Aug. 13, 1999)                     
                      Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
                § 102(a) as being anticipated by Trueblood.  Claims 3, 4, 6-10, 13, 14, and                  
                16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As evidence of obviousness,                  
                the Examiner offers Trueblood alone with respect to claim 21, adds Wilks to                  
                Trueblood with respect to claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, and adds Ohmori to                        
                Trueblood with respect to claims 6-10 and 16-20.                                             
                      Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,                    
                reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the 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 Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived                       
                [see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].                                                          

                                                ISSUES                                                       
                      (i) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(a), does Trueblood have a disclosure                          
                which anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, 22, and             
                23?                                                                                          
                      (ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claim 21,                       
                has the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness based on                      
                Trueblood alone?                                                                             
                      (iii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 3, 4,                   
                13, and 14, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention              



                                                     3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013