Appeal 2007-1275
Application 09/824,248
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Anderson US 6,169,575 B1 Jan. 02, 2001
Shioji US 6,466,264 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Claims 9, 10, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Anderson and Shioji.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant 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 Appellant has 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, has Appellant 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, Appellant has 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