Appeal 2007-1704
Application 09/942,131
Schanz US 6,396,048 May 28, 2002
(filed Aug. 14, 1997)
Claims 1, 3-13, and 25-44, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers
the combination of Dukor and Schanz with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 13, and
25, adds Iddan to the basic combination with respect to claims 26-43, adds
Dumas to the basic combination with respect to claims 8-12, adds Taylor to
the basic combination with respect to claim 7, and adds Harris to the basic
combination with respect to claim 44.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs 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 Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1, 3-6,
13, and 25, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention have found it obvious to combine Dukor and Schanz to
render the claimed invention unpatentable?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 7-12
and 26-44, would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it
obvious to modify the combination of Dukor and Schanz by
separately adding Iddan, Dumas, Harris, and Taylor to render the
claimed invention unpatentable?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013