Appeal 2007-0762
Application 09/822,121
Rejections:
Group I: Claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Potts in view of Baker or Malkin.
Group II: Claims 9 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being obvious over Potts in view of Baker or Malkin and further in view of
Chu.
Appellants contend that the claims are not rendered obvious by Potts
and the other references for failure to make a prima facie case and for other
specific reasons to be discussed more fully below. The Examiner contends
that each group of claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or 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).2
We affirm all of the rejections.
2 Appellants have 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013