Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
that Section 7.1 of Liddy is identified with the following subheader: “7.1
Review of Your Request” (col. 30, l. 41). Furthermore, we find that Liddy
discloses checking (i.e., monitoring) user queries (i.e., user communications
and/or system records) for spelling and grammar errors (col. 30, ll. 31-37).
Because we find Liddy discloses all that is claimed, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 31 as being anticipated by
Liddy.
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claim 32. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand
or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 32
for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 31.
Claim 33
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 33
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Liddy in view of Barr.
Appellants argue that Barr does not teach configuring said search to
be automatically updated periodically, as claimed. Appellants assert that
Barr teaches nothing more than schedulers monitoring and queuing searches.
Appellants argue there is no teaching or suggestion that Barr’s schedulers
automatically update the searches periodically, as asserted by the Examiner
(Br. 16-17). Appellants further argue that the Examiner has impermissibly
relied upon hindsight in formulating the rejection (Br. 18).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013