Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
Claims 13, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Veliadis in view of Hoyt, and
further in view of Naarmann.
Claims 3, 8, 22, 36, 43, and 52-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Veliadis in view of Hoyt,
and further in view of McLuckey.
Claims 16, 41, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Veliadis in view of Hoyt, and
further in view of Gregory and McLuckey.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
Arguments pointing out patentable subject matter which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2005). See also Optivus Tech.,
Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re
Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 1740.
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013