Appeal 2006-2726
Application 10/213,507
The Examiner’s rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hanamura in view of
Stankewitz.
2. Claims 10, 12, 16-19, 23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hanamura in view of Stankewitz and further in
view of Atsushi.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. 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).
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention set forth in the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13, 15, 21,
22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hanamura in view of Stankewitz.1 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the Examiner must establish a factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d
1 Since Appellants have argued the patentability of these claims as a group,
we select claim 11 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013