Appeal No. 2006-3042
Application No. 10/720,494
We first consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 17, and 24-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Amro. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 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 briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Amro [answer, pages 3 and 4]. Regarding
independent claims 1, 8, and 17, appellant makes two main arguments. First,
although Amro’s dynamic help system monitors multiple events, Amro does not
determine whether a series of events is unrelated. Rather, a discrete event is
analyzed on its own to determine whether the event is a spy event or a user
event [brief, page 6; reply brief, page 4]. Second, Amro only displays help text
when an individual event is a spy event, but does not offer assistance when a
series of events is unrelated. In short, Amro does not compare events with each
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013