Appeal 2006-0016
Application 10/347,536
does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Arimilli cures the
aforementioned deficiency of Donaldson. Therefore, we also reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 38-48 and 61-65.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 37-48 and 60-65 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 1, is affirmed. The rejection of claims 37-40, 42-48, 60-63, and 65
under § 102(e) and the rejection of claims 38-48 and 61-65 under § 103(a),
however, are reversed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief or a reply brief
filed pursuant to [37 C.F.R.] § 41.41 will be refused consideration by the
Board, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
briefs. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before us
nor at issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1367, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important that the
applicant challenging a decision not be permitted to raise arguments on
appeal that were not presented to the Board.")
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013