Appeal 2007-1630
Application 10/422,661
THE REFERENCES
Pombo US 5,799,256 Aug. 25, 1998
Croft US 6,078,826 Jun. 20, 2000
Ariga US 6,625,455 B1 Sep. 23, 2003
(filed Aug. 10, 1998)
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Pombo.
2. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Pombo in
view of Croft.
3. Claims 6, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Pombo in view of Ariga.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof. Arguments pointing out patentable subject matter which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2005). See also
Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed.
Cir. 2006); In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
At the outset, we note that Appellant has used an incorrect application
control number (10/442,661) on each page of the Brief and Reply Brief. The
correct application control number for this appeal is 10/422,661. We
consider this to be a typographical error. Because all incoming papers are
routed within the PTO according to application control number, it is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013