Appeal 2007-2220
Application 09/896,231
5. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haddad, Hassell, Seazholtz, and Kitsukawa.
6. Claims 51 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haddad, Hassell, Seazholtz, and Okamoto.
7. Claims 63, 65, and 664 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haddad and Wahl.
8. Claim 70 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haddad.
9. Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haddad and Okamoto.
10. Claim 73 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Haddad and Seazholtz.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4 Although the Examiner indicates that only claim 66 is rejected in the
statement of the rejection, the Examiner nevertheless specifically refers to
independent claim 63 and claim 65 in the text of the rejection (Answer 24-
25). Since claim 66 depends from claim 65 which likewise depends from
independent claim 63, and in view of the Examiner’s specific reference to
these claims in the rejection, we presume that the Examiner intended to
include claims 63 and 65 in this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013