Appeal 2007-1269
Application 10/636,468
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Liu US 2004/0117146 A1 Jun. 17, 2004
(filed Dec. 17, 2002)
Pasadyn US 6,788,988 Sep. 7, 2004
(filed Dec. 17, 2001)
Claims 1-11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Pasadyn and Liu.
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
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). That is, given the
teachings of the prior art, have Appellants shown that the differences
between the claims and the prior art are sufficient to render the claimed
subject matter unobvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the
invention was made?
2 Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims or related claims in each group. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013