Appeal 2007-0058
Application 10/713,600
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
for being anticipated by Wood. The Examiner indicated that claim 7
would be allowed if placed in independent form.
Appellants contend that the subject matter of claims 1 to 6 is
not anticipated by Wood for reasons to be discussed more fully
below. The Examiner contends that the claims are 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 reverse the rejection.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The issue turns on whether all of the claimed limitations are to be
found in the reference, the patent to Wood. More specifically, the
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 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013