Appeal 2007-0262
Application 09/925,258
Wilks US 6,246,407 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Ohmori US 6,292,620 B1 Sep. 18, 2001
(filed Aug. 13, 1999)
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Trueblood. Claims 3, 4, 6-10, 13, 14, and
16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness,
the Examiner offers Trueblood alone with respect to claim 21, adds Wilks to
Trueblood with respect to claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, and adds Ohmori to
Trueblood with respect to claims 6-10 and 16-20.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the 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 Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(i) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(a), does Trueblood have a disclosure
which anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, 22, and
23?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claim 21,
has the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness based on
Trueblood alone?
(iii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 3, 4,
13, and 14, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013