Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 14
Application No. 09/108,687
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Andrews,
Ishida, or Andrews Reexam cures the aforementioned deficiency of Goerlich. Absent a
teaching or suggestion of a detachable wall for a front of a housing for contacts, we are
unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejections of claim 8 and of claims 2, 4-7, and 9, which fall therewith.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 2 and 4-9 under § 112, ¶ 2, is affirmed. The
rejection of claims 2 and 4-9 under § 112, ¶ 1, however, is reversed. The rejection of
claims 2 and 4-9 under § 103(a) is also reversed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(a). 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007