Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Duprey.
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Duprey and Ohmura.
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 that Appellants did not 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
ISSUES
1. Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
2. Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2 Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellants have 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 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013