Appeal 2007-1427
Application 09/826,240
and hold circuits and voltage comparators are such well known elements that
it would have been obvious to an artisan to combine such well known
elements with the teachings of Mittal as a way of implementing Mittal’s
mode selection circuitry. Thus, we find Appellant has failed to traverse the
Examiner’s rejection (i.e., the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness)
by explaining why the Examiner erred.
Because Appellant repeats this same pattern of argument for each of
dependent claims 26, 27, 35, 36, 39, and 40, we find in each case the
Examiner’s argument directed to obviousness has not been challenged by
Appellant. Thus, we find Appellant has not met the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s legal conclusion
of obviousness. We note that 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). See also In
re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We further find Appellant has failed to comply with the requirements
of 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) by merely reciting the language of the claim and
asserting that such language is not taught by the reference. We note that a
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, after carefully considering the
totality of the record by preponderance of evidence with due consideration to
persuasiveness of argument, we find Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we will sustain
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013