Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
installed in the vehicle. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not
convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 25 and 41
through 44.
Rejection of claim 29.
On page 17 of the Brief, Appellant argues that claim 29 is patentable
for the reasons asserted with respect to claims 26 and 23 from which claim
29 depends.
We concur, and as stated supra, we have not sustained the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 26. Therefore, as claim 29 is indirectly dependent upon
claim 26, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 26.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief or by filing a reply Brief have not been
considered and are deemed waived by Appellant (see 37 CFR §
41.37(c)(vii)). Support for this rule has been demonstrated by our reviewing
court in In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 61 USPQ2d 1523, 1528-1529 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) wherein the Federal Circuit stated that because the Appellant did
not contest the merits of the rejections in his Brief to the Federal Circuit, the
issue is waived. See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d
1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013