Appeal No. 1998-1792 Page 7
Application No. 08/453,217
In addressing the obviousness rejection, the appellants merely reference the
argument they made for the anticipation rejection. Specifically, they explain, "[b]ecause
Marko does not anticipate a boost regulator as discussed previously, claims 1 and 20
are not anticipated [sic] by Marko." (Reply Br. at 3.) Having rejected the argument for
the reasons mentioned regarding the anticipation rejection, we affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and of claims 6, 20, and 25, which fall therewith.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 11 and 16 under § 102(b) and the rejection of
claim 1, 6, 20, and 25 under § 103(a) are affirmed. "Any arguments or authorities not
included in the brief[s] will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a)(2002). Accordingly, our affirmance is based
only on the arguments made in the briefs. Any arguments or authorities not included
therein are neither before us nor at issue but are considered waived. No time for taking
any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007