Appeal 2007-0244
Application 09/777,500
With respect to dependent claim 21, Appellants elected to group these
claims with dependent claim 18 in the Brief and now appear to present
separate argument. We group these claims as Appellants previously elected
in the principal Brief and these arguments is deemed waived. (See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)).
With respect to dependent claim 20, Appellants rely upon the
arguments made with respect to independent claim 9 which we did not find
persuasive. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Appellants
additionally find fault in the Examiner’s recitation of Wiser rather than Jones
in the combination and motivation statement at page 12 of the Examiner’s
Answer. We find this to be a minor typographical error that has existed
since the Non-Final Rejection, dated Dec. 8, 2003, when the Examiner
replaced Wiser with Jones in the rejection of claim 20. We find it late in this
prosecution to label this as a serious deficiency which has not been previous
addressed. We find no specific argument for patentability in this asserted
deficiency. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will
sustain the rejection of claim 20.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 9-15, 18, 20-
21, 23, 33-38, and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013