Appeal 2007-0434
Application 10/041,207
URI or URL to individual images based inter alia on the teachings of
Hobbs. Those skilled in the art would have known, moreover, that URLs
and URIs uniquely identify objects or services to which they are assigned.
The Examiner would do well to consider rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 11, 17-21,
23, and 28-30 over a combination of references that includes Squilla and
Hobbs.
V. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11, 18-21, 23, and 28-30
under § 102(e) and the rejection of claim 17 under § 103(a) are reversed.
The rejections of claims 9, 10, 12-16, 22, 24-27, and 31-33 under § 103(a),
however, are affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief or a reply brief
filed pursuant to [37 C.F.R.] § 41.41 will be refused consideration by the
Board, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
brief(s). 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 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important that the
applicant challenging a decision not be permitted to raise arguments on
appeal that were not presented to the Board.")
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013