Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 23
Application No. 08/110,269
It is unclear to which of the discussions the appellant
refers. We have rejected many of his arguments. Accordingly,
the statement shows no error in the rejection. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claim 23. Next, we address claim 24.
Claim 24
Regarding claim 24, the appellant argues, “the Office
Action has not shown a device having no phase change.”
(Appeal Br. at 27.) The examiner fails to respond to this
argument.
The Examiner erred by not explaining how the prior art
would have suggested the limitations of claim 24. He has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claim 24.
We end our consideration of the claims by noting that the
aforementioned affirmances are based only on the arguments
made in the briefs. Arguments not raised in the briefs are
not before us, are not at issue, and are thus considered
waived.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007