Appeal No. 2007-0400
Application 10/788,054
in the Answer, which at page 6 simply repeats the position previously stated at
page 5 of the Final Office Action. See Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (“courts have consistently concluded that the failure of an appellant to
include an issue or argument in the opening brief will be deemed a waiver of the
issue or argument.”) (citing Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d
792, 800 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). The rejection is therefore also affirmed with respect to
Claim 18. Finally, the rejection is also affirmed with respect to the remaining,
unargued dependent claims, i.e., claims 2-10, 12-17, 19, 21, and 23-25. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
anticipation by Vujkovic-Cvijin is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f) and
41.52(b).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013