Appeal 2007-1569
Application 10/089,083
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nakamura US 5,913,039 Jun. 15, 1999
Wiser US 6,868,403 B1 Mar. 15, 2005
Rejection:
Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 12, and 14 to 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) for being obvious over Nakamura in view of Wiser.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Nakamura in view of Wiser, for failure of the references to teach
limitations of the claim, and for lack of motivation to combine the
references. The Examiner contends that each of the claims is properly
rejected.
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).3
We reverse the rejection.
3 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013