Ex Parte Flick - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-1535                                                                                 
                Application 10/626,969                                                                           
                                                                                                                
                2Fcmsc818m%252Fdoc%252F0220%252Fexpanding.pdf (last visited Jul.                                 
                13, 2007) (“Leen”).4                                                                             

                   1. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12-14, 17, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 35, 37, and 40 stand                        
                       rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hwang ‘407 in                      
                       view of either Suman or Nykerk and further in view of Boreham.                            
                   2. Claims 4, 15, 26, 33, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                       
                       as unpatentable over Hwang ‘407 in view of either Suman or Nykerk,                        
                       Boreham, and further in view of Hwang ‘697.                                               
                   3.  Claims 5, 7, 16, 18, 24, 27, 34, 36, and 39 stand rejected under 35                       
                       U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hwang ‘407 in view of either                         
                       Suman or Nykerk, Boreham, and further in view of Issa.                                    
                       Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we                         
                refer to the Briefs and the Answers5 for their respective details.  In this                      
                decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by                               
                Appellant.  Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make                           
                in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.  See 37                      
                C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).                                                                       




                                                                                                                
                4 A copy of this reference is provided in the Evidence Appendix of this                          
                opinion.                                                                                         
                5 An Appeal Brief was first filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Sept. 11, 2006,                          
                however, a second Appeal Brief was filed to correct various informalities.                       
                Also, an Examiner’s Answer was mailed Oct. 2, 2006 which was followed                            
                by a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 15, 2006 to clarify the                          
                status of the claims on appeal.  Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Sept.                  
                2006 Brief.                                                                                      
                                                       4                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013