Appeal No. 2003-1146
Application No. 09/595,249
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976). As noted above, 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 have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to claims 8 and 30, the examiner added the teachings of Feeman to
Freedman to teach the use of bleed as a comparison parameter. With respect to
claims 9 and 31, the examiner added the teachings of Brovman to Freedman to teach
the use of ink coverage as a comparison parameter [answer, pages 8-10]. Appellant
argues that neither Feeman nor Brovman teaches the claimed comparison [brief, page
18].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 30 and 31. As noted
above, the comparison of estimate-related specifications and actual print job
specifications is not taught by Freedman. Feeman and Brovman are only cited to show
that bleed and ink coverage were known parameters that are used in specifying a
printed product, and they do not overcome the deficiencies of Freedman noted above.
We now consider the rejection based on the teachings of Crandall and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007