Ex Parte Peele

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 14, 2004

09317480 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication in a law journal and
is not binding precedent of the Board.

Paper No. 18

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JAMES CALVIN PEELE
_____________

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480
______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and NAPPI, Administrative Patent
Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of

claims 1-9

Invention

The invention relates to a method of allocating channels in a cellular
communication system. Cellular communication systems provide coverage to an
area by subdividing the area into a series of smaller sub areas called cells. Each
cell has a base station which communicates with users. The base stations are

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

2
set up in such a manner that the cell is broken up into sectors of coverage. The
cells/base stations and each of their sectors are assigned a group of radio
frequencies through which they communicate with users (i.e., cell phones). The
same frequency groups may be used by many cells in the communications
system, however frequencies are assigned to base stations such that adjacent
cells do not use the same frequency group. The invention allows for dynamically
allocating frequencies to the sectors in the cell based upon the utilization of the
cell.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention.
1. A method for allocating channels in a cell of a cellular communication
system having a plurality of cells comprising:
a. dividing the cell into a plurality of sectors;
b. subdividing channels allocated to the cell into frequency subgroups;
c. assigning the frequency subgroups to respective sectors in the cell;
d. allocating channels within each sector to users in the corresponding
sector;
e. when the number of channels allocated in a first sector of the cell
reaches a predetermined threshold, reassigning an unused channel
from a second sector in the cell to the first sector.

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

3
References

The references relied upon by the examiner are as follows:
Benveniste 5,809,423 Sep. 15, 1998

Przelomiec 5,960,351 Sep. 28, 1999
(filed Feb. 26, 1997)
Yu et al. (Yu) 6,047,186 Apr. 04, 2000
(filed Oct. 06, 1997)
Borst et al. (Borst) 6,119,011 Sep. 12, 2000
( filed Mar. 05, 1998)

Rejection at Issue

Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yu in view of Benveniste. Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Benveniste and Borst. Claims 4,
5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in
view of Benveniste, Borst and Przelomiec. Throughout the opinion we make
reference to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion

We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

4
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we affirm the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset we note that appellant states on page 5 of the brief that “[a]ll
of the claims stand or fall together”. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c) (7) (July 1, 2001) as
amended at 62 Fed. Reg. 513196 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at
the time of appellant filing the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant contests and which applies
to a group of two or more claims, the Board shall select a single claim
from the group and shall decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection
on the basis if that claim alone unless a statement is included that the
claims of the group do not stand or fall together and in the argument under
paragraph (c) (8) of this section appellant explains which the claims of the
group are believed to be separately patentable. Merely pointing out the
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why the
claims are separately patentable.

We will, thereby, consider the appellant’s claims in three groups, one for each
rejection. Group 1 consists of claims 1 and 2 and we will treat claim 1 as a
representative claim of that group. Group 2 consists of claims 3, 6 and 7 and we
will treat claim 6 as a representative claim of that group. Group 3 consists of
claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 and we will treat claim 4 as a representative claim of that
group. See also In re McDaniel 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“if the brief fails to meet either requirement [of 37 CFR
1.192(c)(7)] the Board is free to select a single claim from each group of claims

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

5
subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of all claims in that
group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected
representative claim.”) See also In re Watts 354 F.3d 1362, 69 USPQ2d 1453,
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant makes two principal arguments, which are directed to all of the
rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103. First, on page 5 of the brief appellant
argues “[t]he examiner’s reliance on Yu is improper, since Yu, when considered
as a whole, teaches away from the present invention. The Examiner has not
considered Yu as a whole, but rather has selectively extracted elements from Yu
to reject Applicant’s claims.” On pages 5 through 8 of the brief appellant provides
the rationale to support the first argument. On page 9 of the brief, appellant
presents the second argument that “[t]he examiner’s rejection based upon
Benveniste relies on argument by insufficiently substantiated analogy.” The
rationale supporting this argument is provided on pages 9 through 11 of the brief.
Before we consider the examiner’s rejection we must first determine the
scope of the claims. Claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, limitations appearing in the specification will not
be read into the claims. In re Etter 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985). In analyzing the scope of the claim, office personnel must rely on the
appellant’s disclosure to properly determine the

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

6
meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting
what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an
extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’”
(emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348,
64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-
Vet Laboratories Inc. 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “[T]he terms
used in the claims bear a “heavy presumption” that they mean what they say and
have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons
skilled in the relevant art.” Texas Digital Sys, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d
1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Moreover, the intrinsic
record also must be examined in every case to determine whether the
presumption of ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted.” (citation omitted).
“Indeed, the intrinsic record may show that the specification uses the words in a
manner clearly inconsistent with the ordinary meaning reflected, for example, in a
dictionary definition. In such a case, the inconsistent dictionary definition must
be rejected.” Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d at 1204,
64 USPQ2d at 1819 (Fed. Cir. 2002). (“[A] common meaning, such as one
expressed in a relevant dictionary, that flies in the face of the patent disclosure is
undeserving of fealty.”); Id. (citing Liebscher v. Boothroyd, 258 F.2d 948, 951,

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

7
119 USPQ 133, 135 (C.C.P.A. 1958) (“Indiscriminate reliance on definitions
found in dictionaries can often produce absurd results.”)). “In short, the
presumption in favor of a dictionary definition will be overcome where the
patentee, acting as his or her own lexicographer, has clearly set forth an explicit
definition of the term different from its ordinary meaning.” Id. “Further, the
presumption also will be rebutted if the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed
scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Id.
Claim 1 contains the limitations “dividing the cell into a plurality of sectors”,
“allocating channels within each sector to users in the corresponding sector” and
“when the number of channels in a first sector of the cell reaches a
predetermined threshold, reassigning an unused channel from a second sector in
the cell to the first sector.” Claim 6 similarly includes the limitations of “dividing
the cell into a plurality of sectors”, “allocating channels within each sector to
users in the corresponding sector” and “when the number of channels in a first
sector of the cell reaches a predetermined threshold . . . reassigning the unused
channel from the second sector in the cell to the first sector in the cell.” Thus, the
scope of claims 1 and 6 includes that a cell has several sectors, each of which is
assigned several channels and when the number of channels being allocated to
users in one of the sectors reaches a threshold an un-used channel from another

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

8
sector in the same cell is taken and assigned to the sector that reached the
threshold.
Appellant asserts on page 6 of the brief that Yu teaches allocation of
channel groups to sectors based upon real-world performance characteristics
using a complex algorithm. Appellant argues, “ Not only does Yu disclose no
dynamic allocation of channels among sectors, Yu inherently teaches away from
the adaptive allocation of channels. Yu’s invention is the computationally
intensive crafting of a fixed channel allocation pattern that is tailored to the real-
world performance metrics of each specific region” (emphasis original).
On page 10 of the answer the examiner agrees, “Yu does not teach,
suggest or contemplate dynamic allocation of channels among sectors, but
instead teaches fixed allocation of channels among sectors.” However, the
examiner asserts that Yu does not teach away from dynamic allocation of
channels. On page 11 of the answer, the examiner argues that Benveniste is
evidence that Yu does not teach away from dynamic allocation of channels. The
examiner reasons, on page 12 of the answer, that
Benveniste suggests that Yu can be modified for Adaptive channel
assignment. Yu does not teach Adaptive channel assignment, but clearly
teaches of non-regular fixed channel allocation. Benveniste discloses that
non-regular fixed channel allocation, when performed periodically, is
adaptive channel assignment. The appellant has made no showing of
why Yu’s non-regular fixed channel allocation could not be performed
periodically; hence the examiner maintains that Yu’s system is able to be
modified for adaptive allocation of channels per Benveniste. As such it is
disagreed that Yu teaches away. (citations omitted)

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

9
Our reviewing court has said “[A] reference may be said to teach away when a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be lead in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching
away will of course depend upon the particular facts; in general, a reference will
teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the
reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the
applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir.
1994) (citing United States V. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52, 148 USPQ 478, 484
(1966)). However, a reference that “teaches away” does not pre se preclude a
prima facie case of obviousness, but rather the “teaching away” of the reference
is a factor to be considered in determining unobviousness. Id 27 F.3d at 552, 31
USPQ 2d at 1132.
Initially, we note that claim 1 does not include a limitation for ”dynamic
allocation of channels among sectors” as appellant’s arguments on page 6 and
the examiner’s response imply. As stated supra, we find that the scope of claim
1 includes a cell that has several sectors, each of which is assigned channels
and when the number of channels being allocated to users in one of the sectors
reaches a threshold an un-used channel from another sector in the same cell is
taken and assigned to the sector that reached the threshold (we refer to this

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

10
limitation hereinafter as “transferring channels between sectors of a cell based
upon channel use”).
We do not find that Yu teaches away from the concept of transferring
channels between sectors of a cell based upon channel use. Yu is concerned
with the assignment of communication channel frequencies to sectors in cells.
The problem in the prior art that Yu sets out to solve is that terrain,
buildings and other “real world” constraints make it difficult to assign frequencies
to cells (see Yu Column 3, lines 64 to Column 4 line 41). Yu’s invention is to
create a solution to reduce the “re-engineering” effort required to implement
frequency allocated in the “true physical systems” (see Yu Column 4, lines 55-
62). Thus, we find that Yu teaches that the solution may require further
adjustment. Yu recognizes that the number of frequencies assigned to a sector
are determined by traffic load in the sector and teaches a method to assign
frequencies to the sectors when the traffic load in a sector does not require all
the frequencies assigned (see Yu. Column 17, lines 3-9. We consider that one of
ordinary skill in the art would realize that the opposite could also occur and would
recognize a scenario where the traffic in the sector swells such that there are
insufficient frequencies assigned to a sector to accommodate the traffic. As
such we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to consider
further adjustments to the frequency assignment. We find no teaching in Yu that
would discourage one from modifying the device to permit transferring channels

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

11
between sectors of a cell based upon channel use. Further, as addressed infra,
we find that as the examiner argues, any divergence between the fixed allocation
teaching of Yu and the transferring of assignment as claimed is mitigated by the
teachings of Benveniste. Accordingly, we do not find that Yu teaches away from
transferring channels between sectors of a cell based upon channel
use, rather we find that Yu does not contemplate a scenario where transferring
channels between sectors of a cell based upon channel use is necessary and
leaves the door open for further adjustment of the frequency assignment.
Appellant argues, on pages 6 through 8 of the brief, that the examiner has
improperly relied upon the Yu, that the examiner picked and chose among the
isolated disclosures of Yu and that the examiner should have considered the
teachings of Yu as a whole. Appellant agues, on page 8 of the brief, that
When considered as a whole, Yu teaches constructing call sector
boundaries that accurately reflect real-world performance characteristics,
followed by a precise allocation of specific channel groups to each sector
according to a complex algorithm to optimize performance in each region.
Yu expresses no concern for co-channel interference, for the relative
loading among sectors or for spectral efficiency. The complexity and
computational intensity of Yu’s sector channel allocation algorithm dispel
any notation that Yu envisioned, contemplated or could possibly
implement the dynamic allocation of channels among sectors on an as-
needed basis. In short, Yu teaches away from Applicant’s invention.

The examiner responds to these arguments, on page 10 of the answer, by
asserting that Yu does not “teach away” and stating:
Yu states that co-channel (channel to channel) interference is a limiting
factor in the number of channels available in a system and is the chief
reason for implementing the cellular and frequency reuse concepts. Thus

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

12
by using cellular and frequency reuse concepts, Yu inherently is
concerned with co-channel (channel to channel) interference. Further,
even if Yu does not express concern for co-channel interference, for the
relative loading among sectors, or for spectral efficiency, the appellant
does not indicate why such lack of express concern would render Yu as
teaching away from adaptive allocation of channels or the applicant’s
invention.

It is unclear from the record if the examiner has or has not considered the
teaching of Yu as a whole. The statements by the examiner in the final office
action and the advisory action referred to by the appellant do not prove that the
examiner did not consider Yu as a whole. However, even if the examiner did not
consider Yu as a whole, we consider it to be harmless error in this instance. We
have considered the reference as a whole and as stated supra, we do not find
that Yu teaches away from transferring channels between sectors of a cell based
upon channel use.
We find the appellant’s arguments concerning the co-channel interference
un-convincing for the reasons stated by the examiner on page 10 of the answer
(and reproduced above).
Appellant’s argument, on page 8 of the brief, that ‘[t]he complexity and
computational intensity of Yu’s sector channel allocation algorithm dispel any
notation that Yu envisioned contemplated or could possibly implement the
dynamic allocation of channels among sectors on an as-needed basis. In short,
Yu teaches away from Applicant’s invention”, is not convincing, as this is not the
test to establish that a reference “teaches away”. The test to determine if a

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

13
reference “teaches away” is to determine if one “would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be lead in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant” In re Gurley , 27 F.3d at
553, 31 USPQ2d at 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As stated, supra, we find that
though Yu does not contemplate a scenario where transferring channels between
sectors of a cell based upon channel use is necessary, Yu does not discourage
this practice and leaves the door open for further adjustment of the frequency
assignment.
On page 9 of the brief, appellant argues “[t]he paths taken by Yu and the
Applicant - carefully crafted fixed channel allocations and dynamic as-needed
channel allocations - could not be more divergent” and Yu when considered as a
whole teaches away from appellant’s invention.
The examiner argues, on page 12 of the answer, that
Benveniste suggests that Yu can be modified for Adaptive channel
assignment. Yu does not teach Adaptive channel assignment, but clearly
teaches of non-regular fixed channel allocation. Benveniste discloses that
non-regular fixed channel allocation, when performed periodically, is
adaptive channel assignment.

A reference that neither teaches a limitation nor warns against using the
limitation does not require a finding that the reference “teaches away” rather the
teaching of the reference must be considered alongside the teachings of the
secondary reference. ParaOrdnance Manufacturing Inc. V. SGS Importers
Int. Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

14
stated supra, we do not find that Yu teaches or discourages the transfer of
channels between sectors of a cell based upon channel use. We agree with the
rationale provided by the examiner, Benveniste provides suggestion to modify
Yu, however both the examiner and appellant address the combination as
applied to adaptive allocation of channels. As discussed supra claim 1 does not
contain a limitation directed to adaptive allocation of channels, but rather
contains the limitation that we refer to as “transferring channels between sectors
of a cell based upon channel use”. Accordingly we address the combination of
the references as it applies to the limitations of claim 1.
We find that Benveniste contains suggestion to be modified with a channel
allocation system such as taught by Yu. We concur with the examiner‘s
assessment that the system of Yu is the type Benveniste refers to as non-regular
channel allocation. Benveniste, in column 1, lines 52-60, identifies two types of
fixed channel allocations, regular and non-regular, where non-regular channel
allocation is applied when traffic distribution is not uniform. As discussed supra,
Yu teaches assignment of channels based in part upon traffic distribution.
Benveniste also teaches Adaptive-Dynamic Channel Assignment which is a
flexible channel assignment that can adapt to varying traffic loads. Adaptive-
Dynamic Channel Assignment is performed using non-regular channel allocation,
Column 8, lines 11-20. In Adaptive-Dynamic Channel Assignment “Cells will
attempt to use the allocated channels first. If unavailable other channels will be

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

15
accessed”, Column 8, lines 3-5. Thus in Adaptive-Dynamic Channel Assignment,
the non-regular channel allocation is used until there are
no longer any channels available, then additional channels are allocated.
Benveniste teaches that Adaptive-Dynamic Channel Assignment is accomplished
using three logic functions, channel acquisition (channel borrowing), channel
release and channel (re)allocation, (the non-regular channel allocation) Column
9, lines 24-30. Benveniste teaches a preferred method to perform (re)allocation
of channels and also states “the ADCA [Adaptive- Dynamic Channel Assignment]
Algorithm described herein can be used with other channel allocation
methodologies.” Column 11, lines 46-47. We feel that this passage would
provide suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to other methods of
non-regular channel allocations such as Yu’s channel allocation which addresses
“real world” limitations on channel assignment.
Appellant argues, on pages 9 and 10 of the brief, that Benveniste teaches
allocation of channels among cells within a wireless system and not among
sectors in a single cell.
We are not convinced by this argument as we find that Benveniste
implicitly teaches that channels are transferred between sectors in a cell. As the
examiner points out on page 12 of the answer, Benveniste, recognizes that some
cells are sectorized into smaller angular areas, see column 3, lines 12-19.

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

16
Benveniste teaches that in the channel (re)-allocation function of Adaptive-
Dynamic Channel Assignment, “channels are selected so that the number of
channels allocated to each cell or sector is proportional to the number of
channels needed”, Column 11, lines 35-37. Thus, we find that Benveniste
teaches that when the cell is divided into sectors, channels are allocated to
sectors in the cell. Benveniste describes the operation of the channel acquisition
logic (channel borrowing), shown in figure 4, as follows:
The process in which unused channels are borrowed by a cell needing
added capacity is illustrated by the flowchart of figure 4…. The decision
block 909 determines if there is an available channel from those allocated
to the cell to assign to the call request. If there is one, the flow proceeds
to block 911 whose instructions assign the call to the free channel and the
assignment process ends in terminal 919
If all channels allocated to the cell are busy within the cell or borrowed by
other cells, the flow processes to block 913 which determines if there is a
free channel, not allocated to the cell, that would meet al interference and
system requirements if assigned to the call. (emphasis added)

Thus, channel transfer (channel borrowing) only occurs if all channels allocated
to the cell are busy. We find that since sectors are segments of a cell, channels
allocated to the sector are necessarily allocated to the cell. Accordingly, we find
that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that implicit in Benveniste‘s
teaching, that channels from other cells are only borrowed when there is no
available channel in the cell, is that channels allocated to sectors within the cell
must be transferred between sectors before transfer channels from another cell
are transferred to the cell.

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

17
On page 10 of the brief, appellant argues that the examiner provides
superficial arguments by analogizing the relationship between a sectors of a cell
and the parent cell to the relationship between a cell of a network and the
network. On pages 11 and 12 of the brief, the appellant argues that the
examiner does not provide a showing of equivalence between these
relationships. As stated supra we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that Benveniste implicitly teaches transfer of channels between
sectors. As our holding does not rely on an analogy concerning the relationship
between a sector of a cell and the parent cell to the relationship between a cell of
a network and the network, we consider appellant’s arguments on pages 11 and
12 of the brief to be moot. Nonetheless, we find that the examiner’s analogy is
supported by the disclosure of Benveniste which teaches that during channel
(re)-allocation that cells and sectors are treated similarly, see Column 11, lines
35 to 37, which states" channels are selected so that the number of channels
allocated to each cell or sector is proportional . . ."
For the aforementioned reasons we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1and 2 under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and
Benveniste.
Next we consider the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7 under 35 USC § 103
as being unpatentable over Yu, Benveniste and Borst. As stated supra we,

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

18
consider claim 6 as being representative of the group of claims included in this
rejection. Appellant has not provided arguments directed specifically to this
group of claims, rather appellant’s arguments are directed to the combination of
Yu and Benveniste, which form a part of the rejection of these claims.
As stated supra, we find that claim 6 includes limitations of similar scope
to claim 1. Since appellant has provided no additional arguments addressing this
rejection. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7 under 35 USC § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yu, Benveniste and Borst for the reasons stated supra
concerning the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yu and Benveniste.
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 under 35 USC
§103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Benveniste, Borst and Przelomiec. As
stated supra we, consider claim 4 as being representative of the group of claims
included in this rejection. Appellant has not provided arguments directed
specifically to this group of claims, rather appellant’s arguments are directed to
the combination of Yu and Benveniste which form a part of the rejection of these
claims.
As claim 4 is ultimately dependent upon claim 1, it necessarily includes the
same limitations considered supra with respect to claim 1. As appellant has
provided no additional arguments concerning this rejection, we will sustain the

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

19
rejection of claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yu, Benveniste, Borst and Przelomiec for the reasons stated supra concerning
the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yu and Benveniste.
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 brief or by filing a reply brief have not been considered and are
deemed waived by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)] Support for this rule has
been demonstrated by our reviewing court in In re Berger 279 F3d 975, 984, 61
USPQ2d 1523, 1528-1529 (Fed. Cir. 2002) wherein the Federal Circuit Court
stated that because the appellant did not contest the merits of the rejections in
his brief to the Federal Circuit Court, the issue is waived. Also see In re Watts
354 F.3d at 1368, 69 USPQ2d at, 1458.
In view of the forgoing, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 9 under 35 USC § 103.

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this

appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

REN/vsh

Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480

21
DAVID E BENNETT
RHODES COATS & BENNETT LLP
PO BOX 5
RALEIGH, NC 27602