Appeal 2007-1705
Application 10/508,629
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellants’ positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as expanded
upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 7 collectively and no
arguments are presented before us as to claims 2 through 5. Therefore, any
arguments that could have been made with respect to these claims have been
waived.
Correspondingly, the Brief does not argue that Takahashi and Kondo
would not have been properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 and does
not take issue with the Examiner’s correlation from Takahashi as to the
majority of the claimed elements in representative independent claim 1 on
appeal. It is also worthy of note here that Appellants have not challenged
the Examiner’s reliance upon inherency expressed in the Statement of the
Rejection at page 4 of the Answer as to Takahashi’s teachings. Therefore,
any arguments that could have been made with respect to these issues have
also been waived.
The issue before us is whether the teachings in Kondo meet the
limitations of the converting means clause in representative independent
claim 1 on appeal. Additionally, Appellants assert at page 7 of the Brief that
a constant voltage circuit as claimed is completely different than a regulator
converting a power supply voltage into a constant voltage level as set forth
in the converting means clause of claim 1 on appeal. It is noted that there is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013