Appeal 2007-0914
Application 09/904,734
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for the Appellants’ positions,
and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We affirm.
Of independent claims 1, 12, and 16 included within the first stated
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellants only present arguments to
these independent claims collectively, and present no separate arguments to
the remaining dependent claims encompassed by this rejection. Additionally,
the Examiner rejected independent claims 12 and 16 “along the same
rationale” as claim 1 (Answer, 6). We will address independent claim 12
separately and independent claims 1 and 16 collectively.
Initially, we note that Appellant has presented no arguments directed
to the combinability of Watanabe, Horn, or Kan with Veditz or each other.
Accordingly, Appellants have waived any such arguments, and the
combinability of the references will not be addressed here.
in claims 2 and 17 being identical claims. The claim has been treated as
though it depends from claim 16, since this appears to be a typographical
error.
2 The Brief incorrectly lists the grounds of rejection for claims 15 and 25 as
Veditz in view of Kan (Br. 9), as was done at page 11 of the Final Rejection
of 9/19/2005. However, Appellants correctly noted that the rejection was
intended to rely on Veditz, Watanabe and Kan (Br. 15), and the grounds of
rejection was corrected by the Examiner in the Answer (Answer, 11).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013