Appeal No. 2004-2198
Application No. 10/047,925
URL:http://web.archive.org/web/20010610010807/www.caci.co.uk
on May 26, 2003).
Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the same
applied prior art.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief and reply brief for the appellant’s positions,
and to the final rejection and answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final rejection as
better stated in the answer, we generally agree with the examiner’s
positions and therefore sustain the rejections of respective claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, there are no arguments before us made by appellant in
the brief and reply brief challenging the examiner’s reliance upon two
printed documents to allege anticipation within 35 U.S.C. § 102. Since the
issue has not been argued before us, we consider it to have been waived.
The examiner is permitted within MPEP § 2131.01 in a limited number of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007