Appeal 2007-0601
Application 09/792,290
Claims not separately argued
Appellants purport to separately argue claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16,
18, and 19. However, Appellants merely state the features of each of these
claims and allege, without explaining why, that the additional features
render each claim separately patentable.
37 CFR § 41.37 (c) (1) (vii) states that “[a] statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim.”
Appellants have not discussed why the evidence would support a
holding that claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are patentable apart
from claim 1. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
3, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under § 103, as standing or falling with the
patentability of claim 1.
Claims 6-8, 14, and 17
With regard to claim 6, and claims 7 and 8 dependent therefrom,
neither DeNicola nor Shiigi teach depicting, on the wireless devices of the
group members, a multi-dimensional map including at least two axes each
indicating a parameter of feedback.
With regard to claim 14, DeNicola does not teach monitoring the age
of the feedback, then modifying the feedback upon that age reaching a
predetermined amount.
With regard to claim 17, DeNicola does not teach including, in the
processed feedback supplied to individual group members, the feedback
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013