Appeal 2007-1758
Application 10/004,786
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers the combination
of Beach and Larsson with respect to claims 1, 7, 11, and 13-16, adds van
Bokhorst to the basic combination with respect to claims 3, 10, 12, 18, and
23, and further adds Chen with respect to claims 5, 8, 19-22, 24, and 25.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the 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 Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1, 7, 11,
and 13-16, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention have found it obvious to combine Beach and Larsson to
render the claimed invention unpatentable?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 3, 10,
12, 18, and 23, would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it
obvious to modify the combination of Beach and Larsson by
adding van Bokhorst to render the claimed invention unpatentable?
(3) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 5, 8, 19-
22, 24, and 25 would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it
obvious to modify the combination of Beach, Larsson, and van
Bokhorst by adding Chen to render the claimed invention
unpatentable?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013