Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912
E. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Farnung, Kishida and Hieda.
F. Claims 13 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Farnung and Kishida.
G. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Farnung, Kishida and Ishikawa.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
the opinion refers to respective details in the Brief1 and the Examiner’s
Answer.2 This decision considers only those arguments submitted in the
Brief. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)
(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
OPINION
After considering the entire record before us, we do not agree with the
Examiner that claims 5 through 9 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Farnung. We also do not agree with
the Examiner that claims 10 through 16 are properly rejected under
1 Appellant filed a corrected Appeal Brief on Aug. 29, 2005.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on Dec. 2, 2005.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013