Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-15, 17, 19-25, and 27-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Acharya and Gong.
2. Claims 6, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Acharya, Gong, and Banga.
Arguments of the Appellants
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3,
5-15, and 17-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2 In particular, Appellants assert
that Acharya, Gong, and/or Banga do not teach or suggest allowing the user
to digitally point to selected designated portions of the cached document and
only loading the designated portions. (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3-4.) Appellants
also argue that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight. (Br. 6; Reply
Br. 3.) The Examiner contends that each of the claims is properly rejected.
(Answer 3-6.)
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those
claims, they stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We select claim 1 as the representative claim.
2 Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or 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).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013