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