Appeal No. 2001-2037
Application No. 08/884,912
Appellants’ response is to merely repeat the argument made
with regard to independent claim 10 without addressing the
specific limitation recited in claim 16. Accordingly, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as the
examiner appears to have set forth a reasonable case for
obviousness and appellants do not respond in a substantive
manner. Arguments not made are waived. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d
705, 231 USPQ 640 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b) and claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18-22 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007