Appeal No. 2006-2789
Application No. 10/215,217
contacts 62, 63 on adapter 10 that could mate with any jack so that electrical
power is provided in addition to receiving a plug [Clarke, col. 1, line 49 – col. 2,
line 6; Figs. 1, 2, and 7]. In our view, such a teaching would have been readily
combinable with the adapter of DE ‘297 so that electrical power was provided via
the adapter in the event that electrical power is needed in addition to the adapter
connections.
For the above reasons, the examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 8 is therefore sustained. Since appellants have not separately
argued with particularity the patentability of independent claim 1 or dependent
claims 4, 6, 7, and 9-12, these claims fall with independent claim 8. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
In summary, we have sustained the examiner's rejection with respect to all
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 4,
and 6-122 is affirmed.
2 As an ancillary observation, we note that claim 12 merely duplicates claim 1. Because the
parties did not raise this issue on appeal, it is therefore not before us. In an ex parte appeal, "the
Board is basically a board of review − we review…rejections made by patent examiners." Ex
parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (B.P.A.I. 2001). Consequently, we leave the issue of
whether the appellants have satisfied the requirements of MPEP § 706.03(k) to the examiner and
the appellants.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007