Appeal No. 2001-1195
Application No. 09/154,485
including “further switching devices” -- i.e., a total of at least three switching devices --
mounted on each of the identical “carrier plates” [sic; printed circuit boards]. For
reasons similar that we found the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested one switching device on each printed circuit board, we find the combined
teachings would have suggested at least three switching devices on each printed circuit
board. Coates expressly discloses that the single control 62 shown in Figure 3 is
merely illustrative. Coates col. 4, ll. 56-57. The combination of Coates and Ohashi
would have suggested multiple switching devices on each of identical printed circuit
boards as claimed. We therefore sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 3 and 8.
We are in ultimate agreement with appellant, however, that the applied prior art
fails to disclose or suggest the requirements of dependent claims 4, 5, 9, and 10. The
claims require more than “arrangement of which devices are placed in which location,”
as suggested on page 4 of the Answer. The claims require particular arrangements of
indicator elements (claims 4 and 9) and illuminating means (claims 5 and 10) with
respect to control elements, and further “coaxial optical conductors” (claims 5 and 10).
Since the rejection of claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 lacks a factual foundation in this record, we
do not sustain the section 103 rejection of those claims.
We have considered all of appellant’s arguments in making our determinations.
Arguments appellant could have presented in the Brief, but chose not to rely upon, are
deemed waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (“Any arguments or authorities not included in
the brief will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007