Appeal 2007-1600
Application 09/753,062
Appellants, and because Kermani does not teach (a) a data structure or bit
mask, (b) a release flag, and (c) a handoff flag. The Examiner contends that
the priority assigned to the agents/processors of Kermani may fairly be
characterized as a hierarchy, and that Kermani teaches all the elements of the
claimed invention.
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 that 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).2
ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is whether a “hierarchy”
encompasses a set of items having a priority established among them.
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013