Appeal 2007-2031
Application 10/905,818
4. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Heckman in view of Pepper and further in view of Oehler.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the following claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 17, 20, 21,
24, and 26 as unpatentable over Heckman in view of Pepper; (2) claims 18 and 19
as unpatentable over Heckman in view of Pepper and further in view of Faber; (3)
claims 22 and 23 as unpatentable over Heckman in view of Pepper and further in
view of Butler; and (4) claim 25 as unpatentable over Heckman in view of Pepper
and further in view of Oehler. The correctness of the above rejections turns on
whether the references properly may be combined and whether, when combined,
they yield the claimed invention.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013