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