Appeal 2006-3404
Application 10/601,715
Watanabe US 6,412,978 Jul. 2, 2002
Biegelsen US 6,476,376 B1 Nov. 5, 2002
Group I: The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13-24, 26, 27,
29, 30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2004) for being anticipated by
Klotz.
Group II: The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for being obvious over Klotz in view of Watanabe.
Group III: The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, 25, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Klotz in view of Biegelsen.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Klotz, or rendered obvious by Klotz in combination with Watanabe or
Biegelsen, for reasons to be discussed more fully below. The Examiner
contends that each of the three groups of claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference 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).2
We affirm the rejections.
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013