Appeal No. 2002-1301
Application No. 09/233,983
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-14, 22 and 23
based on the teachings of Arimoto and Ishida. These claims stand
or fall together in two different groups which are respectively
headed by independent claims 1 and 8 [brief, page 5]. With
respect to independent claim 1, the examiner cites Arimoto as
teaching the claimed invention except for controlling the amount
of light according to a frequency characteristic of the
transducer unit. The examiner cites Ishida as teaching that the
proper outputs of a transducer depend on a frequency
characteristic of the transducer. The examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to modify the light
controlling method of Arimoto according to a frequency
characteristic of the transducer as taught by Ishida [answer,
pages 4-5].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007