Appeal 2007-1650
Application 11/111,799
will be discussed more fully below. The Examiner contends that each of the
claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their 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 Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).3
We affirm.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue turns on whether
all of the claimed elements are to be found in the Walters reference.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 20, 21, 23, 26-28, 30,
and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
1. Appellants have invented a circuit for the generation of clock
signals on an integrated circuit (IC). The generator accepts an
3 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims,
except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013