Appeal No. 2005-0342
Application No. 09/758,787
Rejection of claims in Group 2 (claim 27)
On pages 7 and 8 of the brief appellant’s arguments are directed to claim
25 and the limitation of an inverse square root circuit (ISR). Appellant argues on
page 8 “Hong does not anticipate or suggest a claim limitation reciting where the
output of an ISR circuit is provided to an inverter circuit to generate its reciprocal
as claimed.”
As stated supra, the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 25
and 26. We do not find any limitation in claim 27 directed to an inverse square
root circuit. As appellant has not identified any limitation of claim 27 which is not
taught by the combination of Suzuki in view of Nelson in view of Hong, we
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 27.
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 or by filing a reply brief have not been considered and are
deemed waived by appellant (see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii)) Support for this rule
has been demonstrated by our reviewing court in In re Berger 279 F.3d 975,
984, 61 USPQ2d 1523, 1528-1529 (Fed. Cir. 2002) wherein the Federal Circuit
Court stated that because the appellant did not contest the merits of the
rejections in his brief to the Federal Circuit Court, the issue is waived. See also
In re Watts 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007