Appeal 2007-0786
Application 10/262,142
required by claims 1 and 12 and a controller embedded with a resource as required
by claim 21. The resolution of these issues ultimately is a matter of claim
construction.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to 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).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. The Specification teaches that “[i]t is expected that the processing
function would be an intimate, embedded part of the resource although is
[sic, it] could be remote and operate on behalf of the resource.”
(Specification 12:1-3).
2. Cesta teaches a meeting agent that is able to automatically organize
meetings, seminars, and small conferences. The meeting agent has a
distributed architecture and consists of subagents, including a scheduling
agent, a resource agent, a server agent, and a travel agent. There is an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013