Appeal 2007-1648
Application 10/631,098
providing an argument as to why the limitations are separately patentable.
37 C.F.R.§41.37(c)(1)(vii) states:
[T]he failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant
has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that
the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim
separately. Any claim argued separately should be placed under a
subheading identifying the claim by number. Claims argued as a
group should be placed under a subheading identifying the claims by
number. A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.
Thus, we consider Appellant’s statements, on page 11 and 12 of the Brief,
regarding claims 17, 18, and 32 through 36 to be a statement which merely
points out what the claims recite, and we do not consider these claims to be
separately argued. Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) we
group these claims with claim 14. Nonetheless, as discussed above in our
analysis related to the first issue, the Appellant has not convinced us that the
Examiner erred in finding that one skilled in the art could implement Au’s
circuit using SOI technology.
Further, Appellant’s arguments do not separately address claim 31;
accordingly, we group claim 31 with claim 14.
ANALYSIS RELATED TO REJECTION OF CLAIMS 24 AND 26
THROUGH 30.
Appellant presents arguments directed to independent claim 24 on
pages 16 and 17 of the Brief. Appellant argues that Au’s circuit can not be
implemented in SOI because it contains a SCR and that the circuits of Au
and Brady can not be implemented as they rely upon the body being non-
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013