Ex Parte Hensbergen et al - Page 13



                 Appeal 2007-1978                                                                                       
                 Application 10/185,702                                                                                 


                 follows that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of                                     
                 Matsunami, Cesar, and Bennett renders the claimed invention unpatentable.                              
                 Appellants did not make any arguments pertaining to the rejection of claims                            
                 5, 15, 25 and 35 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsunami                               
                 and Cesar.  Similarly, Appellants did not make any arguments pertaining to                             
                 the rejection of claims 8 through 10, 18 through 20, 28 through 30 and 38                              
                 through 4 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matsunami and                                  
                 Wu.  Such arguments are deemed to have been waived.  See 37 C.F.R.                                     
                 § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).  See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,                        
                 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                                                 

                                             CONCLUSION OF LAW                                                          
                        On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner                            
                 failed to establish that Matsunami’s disclosure anticipates claims 1, 4, 11,                           
                 14, 21, 24, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).  Further, Appellants have                             
                 not shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the combination of                                
                 Matsunami, Cesar or Wu renders claims 5, 8 through 10, 15, 18 through 20,                              
                 25, 28 through 30, 35, and 38 through 40 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.                                  
                 § 103(a).  However, Appellants have shown that the Examiner failed to                                  
                 establish that the combination of Matsunami, Cesar, and Bennett renders                                
                 claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 26, 27, 36, and 37 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.                                   
                 § 103(a).                                                                                              

                                                          13                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013