Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 14
Application No. 09/282,320
we affirm the rejection of claim 18 and of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-15, 19, and 20, which fall
therewith, based on Baumgarten and Janow.4
The appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 3, 8, 16, or 17
but instead rely on their aforementioned arguments. Unpersuaded by these arguments,
we also affirm the rejections of claims 3, 8, 16, and 17.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(a)(2004). Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in
the briefs. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before us nor at
issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367, 69 USPQ2d
4 We consider Kamaya cumulative to the teachings of Baumgarten and Janow.
The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by an examiner in an
obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush,
296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455,
458, n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007