Appeal 2007-1318
Application 09/726,779
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Blowers US 6,298,474 B1 Oct. 2, 2001
(filed Apr. 30, 1999)
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16-18, 20-27, 29-31, 33-40, and 42-59 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Blowers.
Claims 6, 19, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Blowers.
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 claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16-18, 20-27, 29-31, 33-40, and 42-59 as
being anticipated by Blowers and in rejecting claims 6, 19, and 32 as being
obvious over Blowers. The issue turns on whether Blowers teaches or
suggests each and every limitation of the claims.
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013