Appeal 2007-0399
Application 09/961,024
Baker US 6,333,938 B1 Dec. 25, 2001
(filed Apr. 29, 1997)
Bennett US 6,697,904 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
(filed Mar. 28, 2000)
Gulick US 6,816,935 Nov. 09, 2004
(filed Mar. 2, 2001)
Group I: Claims 1 to 14, 16 to 18, 28 to 31, 33 to 34, 36 to 44, and 49
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Baker in
view of Earnest.
Group II: Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
obvious over Baker in view of Earnest in view of Holm.
As the issues described below apply to both groups of claims, they
will be considered together.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Baker in combination with Earnest and Holm as the references
were not properly combined, and the combination of references fails to
disclose some of the claimed subject matter. These contentions will be
discussed more fully below.
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
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013