Appeal 2007-0537
Application 10/102,902
In each case, following recitation of the claim phrase, Appellants
argue: The “Examiner’s position is flawed as a matter of fact and as a
matter of law. Specifically, neither Cornilescu, nor Gilhuijs, nor Atta-ur-
Rahman, nor any alleged combination thereof teaches or suggests this
feature [or] each and every element of the claimed invention as recited in
[the subject] claim.” (App. Br. 31-34.) Appellants provide no explanation
why this is so with respect to any of these claims.5 (Id.)
The Examiner found each recited limitation met by the references.
(Answer 11-12 (referencing Answer 7-11); see also FF 20.) We have
considered the Examiner’s findings with respect to the recited limitations.
Lacking any argument by Appellants why the Examiner’s findings are
flawed, we agree with the Examiner that the references would have taught or
suggested the recited limitations of claims 1, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 27 to the
skilled artisan and would have taught or suggested the subject matter of the
claims as a whole.
5 Again, in our view, Appellants have not fully complied with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) which requires more than recitation of an additional claim
limitation. Merely stating the references don’t teach or suggest the
limitation or all the elements of the claim, coupled with a statement that the
Examiner’s position is “flawed,” is not sufficient. Nevertheless, we have
considered each recited limitation, and the Examiner’s findings with respect
to each.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013