Appeal No. 2005-0233
Application 10/085,138
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
[see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-18
based on the teachings of Holmquest and Tran. Appellant has
indicated that claims 1-7 and 11-16 stand or fall together as a
first group, and claims 17 and 18 stand or fall together as a
second group [brief, page 4]. Accordingly, we will limit our
consideration to independent claims 1 and 17.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, the
examiner essentially finds that Holmquest teaches the claimed
invention. The examiner notes that even though the delay circuit
of Holmquest can act at the time of power-up, it is not
explicitly disclosed within Holmquest. The examiner cites Tran
as teaching the use of a delay circuit at power-up in order to
avoid false shutdowns. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to use the delay circuit taught by
Tran in the Holmquest device for the advantages taught by Tran
[answer, page 4].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007