Appeal 2007-0148
Application 10/964,939
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hullfish and Wang.
DISCUSSION
Only arguments raised are addressed
Appellants raise three arguments, one for each independent claim.
Each argument relates to a limitation that the Examiner found to be
disclosed in Hullfish. Only these arguments are considered. Arguments not
made are considered to be abandoned and have not been addressed. Cf.
In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious
distinctions over the prior art."); In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Just as it is important that the
PTO in general be barred from raising new arguments on appeal to justify or
support a decision of the Board, it is important that the applicant challenging
a decision not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not
presented to the Board." (Footnote omitted.)).
Claims 1-6 and 8
Independent claim 1 recites "determining which messaging engine to
use from a plurality of messaging engines available to the dispatch server at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013