Appeal No. 2006-0547
Application No. 10/276,568
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
answer (mailed Jun. 24, 2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the applicant’s brief (filed Apr. 22, 2005) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief
have not been considered. We deem such arguments to be waived by appellant [see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) effective September 13, 2004 replacing 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellant has elected to group all of the dependent claims as standing or falling with
independent claim 12. Therefore, we will evaluate appellant’s arguments with respect
to independent claim 12.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007