Appeal 2007-1509
Application 09/427,114
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, pages 72 and
1192, (2001).1
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-26, all of the appealed claims, stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the
Examiner offers Orimo in view of Charles with respect to claims 25 and 26,
and adds FOLDOC to the basic combination with respect to claims 1-9, 11-
19, and 21-24.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the 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 Brief have not been considered and are deemed waived [see 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 25 and
26, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention have been motivated and found it obvious to combine
Orimo with Charles to render the claimed invention unpatentable.
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1-9, 11-
19, and 21-24 would the ordinarily skilled artisan have been
motivated and found it obvious to modify the combination of
Orimo and Charles by adding the FLDOC reference to render the
claimed invention unpatentable.
1 This reference is not included as part of the Examiner’s stated grounds of
rejection but, rather, is cited as evidence in support of the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013