Appeal No. 2006-1697
Application No. 10/400,998
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).
Regarding independent claim 10, we agree with the examiner that it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to add
hysteresis by adding a second lower threshold to Seiki essentially for the reasons
noted by the examiner. Additionally, appellant has not separately contested this
position apart from the arguments noted previously pertaining to independent
claims 1 and 17. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 10 along with independent claims 1 and 17.
In addition, since appellant has not separately argued the patentability of
dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-22, these claims fall with independent
claims 1, 10, and 17. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii). Moreover, we find that
the examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for
these claims on pages 4-10 of the answer that appellant has not persuasively
rebutted. The rejections of the dependent claims are therefore sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007