Appeal 2007-2532 Application 10/608,791 therefore consider only arguments for the patentability of claims 1 and 4, all other arguments having been waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) ("the failure of appellant to separately argue claims . . . shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.") Jackson's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Krieger are essentially the same as those raised against the rejection over Stasiak. (Br. at 12–13.) Here, where Krieger expressly describes memory cells in which the resistance of memory elements changes the memory state (Krieger at 2, ¶ 19; FF 20), we find that the weight of the evidence favoring anticipation outweighs the evidence to the contrary. Jackson's argument that Krieger fails to disclose a reversible memory state change (Br. at 13) is misplaced, as there is no such limitation in claim 1 or in any of the dependent claims. Patentability cannot be premised on a limitation that is absent from the claimed subject matter. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). Accordingly, we hold that Jackson has failed to prove reversible error by the Examiner. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 via claims 2 and 3. Claim 2 requires that the memory element have a first memory state having a high resistance and a second memory state having a low resistance. Claim 3 requires that the memory state transition be triggered by one or more listed agents. Claim 4 requires that the organic polymer layer contain dopants that are not active in the first memory state and active in the second memory state. Jackson argues that Figure 5 and the associated text, on which the Examiner relies, neither describe nor suggest such a memory. Krieger shows in Figure 5 a memory cell having an active layer 3 and a passive layer 5. (Krieger at 3, 17Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013