Appeal No. 2000-1984
Application No. 08/565,775
these claims, all that is required is that at least one of a
variety of parameters is chosen to determine coil inductance.
Clearly, artisans knew that any one of these recited parameters
affects the inductance of the coil and appellants offer no
dispute as such. While appellants state that our decision does
not address "the contested limitations of claims 5 and 7-10"
(request for rehearing, page 5), it is unclear what, exactly, are
the "contested limitations."
Turning, finally, to claim 6, appellants state that they
contested certain features of this claim at page 18 of the
principal brief. In particular, appellants argued that the
examiner did not address the claimed feature of a ferromagnetic
material that fills the window frame and covers the carrier but
not the insulant window frame. However, the examiner did address
this limitation, at page 12 of the answer, by stating that, in
Schweizerhof, the ferromagnetic material is inside frame 15.
While appellants refer to other references when arguing the
examiner's rationale with regard to claim 6, appellants do not
address, or argue, the examiner's contention, with regard to
Schweizerhof, that the ferromagnetic material is inside frame 15.
Arguments not made are waived. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705,
231 USPQ 640 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007