Appeal 2007-1809
Application 09/774,013
Yajima US 4,074,231 Feb. 14, 1978
Stavely US 5,969,372 Oct. 19, 1999
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stavely in view of Yajima.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answers for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but 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).
OPINION
As an initial matter, we note that Appellant presents three claim
groups for consideration in the present appeal: (1) claims 1 and 72; (2) claim
2; and (3) claims 4, 5, 8, and 10 (Br. 9-10).
Regarding the first grouping, although Appellant’s arguments are
directed primarily to the patentability of independent claim 1, we would
select independent claim 7 as representative of this grouping because it is
broader than claim 1 and, indeed, is the broadest claim on appeal. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2 Although Appellant’s arguments are primarily directed to the patentability
of independent claim 1 (Br. 10-15), Appellant also mentions independent
claim 7 in connection with this grouping as allowable for the same reasons
as claim 1 “[t]o the extent claim 7 recites similar elements [as claim 1]” (Br.
15). We therefore presume that Appellant intended to include claim 7 in this
grouping.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013