Appeal No. 2003-2069
Application 09/414,867
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the teachings of the applied prior
art [answer, pages 3-4]. The examiner essentially finds that
Lagergren teaches all the claimed features except for the
meshable rotors, the junction box and the third through sixth
signal cables connected to the junction box. The examiner cites
Colonnello as teaching each of these claimed features. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
include these features of Colonnello in the fuel flowmeter of
Lagergren.
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue
that Lagergren does not teach impellers with intermeshed lobes
[brief, page 8], however, the examiner relied on Colonnello for
this teaching. Appellants then quote a major portion of claim 1
and simply assert that neither Lagergren nor Colonnello teaches
the recited features although appellants offer no explanation for
this position and do not specifically respond to the examiner’s
findings [id., pages 8-9]. With respect to Colonnello,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007