Appeal No. 2006-0167
Application No. 10/186,263
blocks are expressed. We find that Chang’s equations in column 17, lines 17
through 21, which the examiner relies upon to support the rejection, do not teach
the relationship between blocks nor the hierarchy of blocks. Chang teaches that
the formula BDCblock=A.Cblock._block represents the design constraint for a block
and does not indicate the interconnection between blocks nor the hierarchy of
blocks. See column 17, line 17. Thus, we do not find that Chang teaches all of
the limitations of claims 11 and 24. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 24.
Summary
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
stated that because the appellant did not contest the merits of the rejections in
his brief to the Federal Circuit, 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