Appeal No. 2005-0429 Page 3
Application No. 09/872,209
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’ briefs, and
to the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, for
the reasons stated infra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. We deem such
arguments to be waived by Appellants [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) effective
September 13, 2004 replacing 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal, the claims
stand or fall together in two groupings:
Claims 1-6 as Group I; and
Claims 7-9, as Group II.
See page 5 of the brief. Furthermore, Appellants argue each group of claims
separately and explain why the claims of each group are believed to be
separately patentable. See pages 6-15 of the brief and pages 2-4 of the reply
brief. Appellants have fully met the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 14, 2003. Appellants filed a reply brief on March 5,
2004. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on December 30, 2003.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007