Appeal 2007-1792
Application 10/050,834
2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mizusawa
in view of Edwards, and further in view of McEowen.
3. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Scheublein, Jr. in view of Maughan.2
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the following claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claim 1 as
unpatentable over Mizusawa in view of Edwards; (2) claim 8 as unpatentable over
Mizusawa in view of Edwards, and further in view of McEowen; and (3) claims 1
and 4 as unpatentable over Scheublein, Jr. in view of Maughan. The correctness of
the obviousness rejections 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).
2 On page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner withdrew U.S. Patent number 3,103,377
to Scheublein, Jr., et al. from the rejection of claims 1 and 4 because, although
listed in the final rejection mailed on October 21, 2004, the Examiner did not rely
on the deleted reference to teach any missing element or to support the rationale
for combining Scheublein, Jr. and Maughan.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013