Appeal No. 95-2405
Application No. 07/969,663
deemed unpersuasive, for the reasons supra, this argument, too,
is unpersuasive.
While we understand appellant’s disclosed invention to
differ somewhat from that disclosed by the applied references,
and we do not say that the subject matter of instant claim 8
cannot be distinguished from the prior art as represented by
Stevenson and Roeser, we simply note that appellant has not so
distinguished the claim language. Further, appellant does not
take issue with the appropriateness of the examiner’s combination
of the references and motivation therefor.
We have responded to all of appellant’s arguments.
Arguments not made are waived. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709,
231 USPQ 640, 642-43 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, since
appellant has failed to convince us of any error in the
examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103, we will sustain the rejection.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007