Appeal No. 2006-1095 Page 5
Application No. 10/280,188
set forth in the examiner’s answer. Only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
appellants could have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69
USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon supports each of the examiner’s rejections of the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12-15 and 18-
23 as being anticipated by Boiarski. Since Appellants’ arguments with
respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which
stand or fall together, we will consider independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-6, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-6 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007