Appeal No. 2006-2982 Page 13
Application No. 10/458,112
examiner that the claimed “magnetic film” also broadly reads on shielding
material layer 58 that can include (in one embodiment) a magnetic epoxy
with superparamagnetic particles suspended therein [Rizzo, § 0050].
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 29 as being anticipated by Rizzo for essentially the same reasons
argued by the examiner in the answer. We note that appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability
of dependent claim 30. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
With respect to dependent claim 30, we further note that Rizzo discloses in
one embodiment a non-magnetic polymer that inherently “coats”
superparamagnetic particles that are suspended or embedded in the polymer
[¶ 0038]. Therefore, we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
30 as being anticipated by Rizzo.
Claims 18-20 (Richter)
II. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 18-20 as being
anticipated by Richter. 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 18 as the representative claim
for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007