Ex Parte Lindskog et al - Page 3

              Appeal 2007-1758                                                                     
              Application 10/004,786                                                               
                    Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.          
              § 103(a).  As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers the combination           
              of Beach and Larsson with respect to claims 1, 7, 11, and 13-16, adds van            
              Bokhorst to the basic combination with respect to claims 3, 10, 12, 18, and          
              23, and further adds Chen with respect to claims 5, 8, 19-22, 24, and 25.            
                    Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,            
              reference is made to the Brief 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 Brief 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, 7, 11,          
                       and 13-16, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the        
                       invention have found it obvious to combine Beach and Larsson to             
                       render the claimed invention unpatentable?                                  
                   (2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 3, 10,             
                       12, 18, and 23, would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it          
                       obvious to modify the combination of Beach and Larsson by                   
                       adding van Bokhorst to render the claimed invention unpatentable?           
                   (3) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 5, 8, 19-          
                       22, 24, and 25 would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it           
                       obvious to modify the combination of Beach, Larsson, and van                
                       Bokhorst by adding Chen to render the claimed invention                     
                       unpatentable?                                                               

                                                3                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013