Appeal No. 2006-2920 Page 3
Application No. 10/813,501
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we
make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied
upon by the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal 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 by the examiner does not support the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. Accordingly, we reverse.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007