Appeal 2007-0708
Application 09/881,367
First, Appellant contends1 that Ogawa does not anticipate claims 1
through 8 and 10 through 17. Particularly, Appellant contends that Ogawa
does not teach any of the limitations of the cited claims. (Br. 6-29; Reply
Br. 5-8.) The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Ogawa teaches the
limitations of the cited claims. (Answer 5-8.) The Examiner therefore
concludes that Ogawa anticipates claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 17.
(id.)
Second, Appellant contends that Ogawa does not render claim 9
unpatentable. (Br. 31.) Particularly, Appellant contends that the Examiner
failed to establish a clear and particular showing of a teaching or motivation
to modify Ogawa to make processing of the first parameter non-
programmable. (Br. 31.) In response, the Examiner contends that it would
have been obvious to combine Ogawa’s teaching with knowledge of the
prior art to yield the invention, as recited claim 9. (Answer 9.) The
Examiner therefore concludes Ogawa renders claim 9 unpatentable. (Id.)
Third, Appellant contends that the combination of Ogawa and Wilford
does not render claims 18 through 20 unpatentable. (Br. 32-35.)
Particularly, Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to establish that the
combination of Ogawa and Wilford teaches a means for processing a first
parameter. (Id.) Further, Appellant contends that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings of the cited references. (Id.) In response, the
Examiner contends that the Ogawa-Wilford combination teaches the means
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013