Appeal 2007-1094
Application 09/844,976
The Examiner cites the following references in support of the taking
of Official Notice:
Kostreski 5,729,549 Mar. 17, 1998
Group I: The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Hendricks in view of Kim.
Group II: The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being obvious over Hendricks in view of Kim and further in view of Owa.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Hendricks in combination with Kim or by Hendricks in
combination with Kim and Owa, for reasons to be discussed more fully
below. The Examiner contends that each of the 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 Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellant has not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims or related claims in each group. 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 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013