Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 9
Application No. 09/859,425
Such a capability greatly simplifies the task of making content truly global. . . ." (Col. 8,
ll. 41-46.) Because the reference's invention works with global content, a person skilled
in the art would have understood that it can translate Web page content written in a
textual language such as English or in a pictographic language such as Japanese,
Chinese, or Korean. If a Web page contained both textual elements and pictographic
elements, a person skilled in the art would have also understood that Tso's invention
would have translated both the textual elements and pictographic elements.1
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21, and of claims 2-5, 7-9,
12-15, and 17-20, which fall therewith.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-21 under § 103(a) is affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(a). Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
briefs. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before us nor at
issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367, 69 USPQ2d
1We consider the teachings of Chan cumulative to those of Tso.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007