Appeal No. 2001-1936
Application 09/049,478
signals. Finally, as to this rejection, we note that appellants
have presented no arguments relating to this rejection in the
reply brief.
Lastly, we turn to the rejection of claims 3, 7 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being alternatively obvious over Matsui in
view of Maeda or Matsui in view of Yamamoto. Our study of
appellants' position as to this rejection in the brief and reply
brief yields the realization that appellants have not argued this
rejection in the reply brief. As noted by the examiner at the
top of page 10 of the answer, since appellants have "not argued
the propriety of the rejection based upon the combination of
references Matsui-Yamamoto, the examiner concludes such to be
acquiesced and no further response is made." We further extend
this observation to the alternative rejection of Matsui in view
of Maeda. Appellants' arguments as to the rejection of claims 3,
7 and 13 at pages 14 and 15 of the principal brief on appeal are
directed only to the combination of references of Ceshkovsky in
view of Maeda, which is the first stated rejection of the claims
on appeal and not the one utilized as the fourth stated rejection
of claims 3, 7 and 13. As a final matter, we have already
indicated our reversal earlier in this opinion of the rejection
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007