Appeal No. 1998-1748
Application No. 08/758,295
which is covered by the vinyl sheets is also “readily
deformable,” to a degree, when impacted by a foreign object.
Thus, the language of instant claim 1 would appear to be
anticipated by Kirschner under alternative interpretations.
At page 3 of the Request for Rehearing, appellant
contends that our decision is “deficient” because while claims
1, 9, 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, only claim 9
is discussed in the opinion. We addressed only claim 9
because appellant argued the merits of no other claim with
regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. If appellant had
arguments with regard to the substance of any other claim,
those arguments should have been presented. Arguments not
made are waived. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 231 USPQ 640
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Even in the Request for Rehearing,
appellant offer no arguments as to why the examiner’s
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is in error.
In arguing claim 9 in the Request for Rehearing (pages 3-
4), appellant contends that the Giulie reference does not
disclose the claimed structure wherein the side walls are
releasably cojoined by means of interfitting tabs and slots.
We disagree. Figure 2 of Giulie and the section depicted in
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007