Appeal 2007-0036
Application 10/699,452
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).1
We affirm.
ISSUES
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, because no reference of record teaches
transmitting delay information “corresponding with an estimated delay
length” as required by independent claims 1 and 10?
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, because no reference of record teaches that
the estimated delay length comprises at least one time interval between a
first instant corresponding with a received autonomous service request
generated at a predefined moment in time and a second instant
corresponding with granting service access, as required by dependent claims
3 and 12?
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, because no reference of record teaches that
the predefined moment in time comprises at least one of a periodic and an
aperiodic instant, as required by dependent claims 4 and 13?
1 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013