Appeal 2007-1557
Application 10/943,536
which Appellant regards as the invention; and (2) claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Corio in view of Fangio. The definiteness issue
turns on whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed,
particularly the meaning of “without switching" in claim 13, when the claim is read
in light of the Specification. The correctness of the obviousness rejection turns on
whether the asserted references are properly combined and whether, when
combined, they yield the claimed invention.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and 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). Except as 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).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013