Appeal No. 2005-0478 Page 3
Application No. 10/064,363
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’ brief, and
to the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.2
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 and 5-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We also use our authority under 37 CFR § 41.50(b) to enter a new ground
of rejection of claims 1 and 4. The basis for this is set forth in detail below.
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 separately. See page 2 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.
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on December 9, 2003. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s
Answer on April 29, 2004.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007