Appeal 2007-2171
Application 09/821,066
Similarly, with respect to the subject matter of claim 13, the Examiner
relied upon paragraphs 0174 and 0233 and Fig 7 of Scheer to show that
Scheer anticipated the subject matter of claim 13 (FF 11). Paragraph 0174 of
Scheer, for example, explicitly describes inventory managing processes
“using a high degree of table-driven and parameter driven software
engineering techniques” (FF 12). The Appeal Brief does not address any of
this disclosure but simply argues that Scheer does not disclose “defining a
first table identifying a plurality of parts; defining a second table, associated
with the first table, indicating functional relationships between the parts; and
recursively searching the first and second tables to generate the list of
interchangeable parts” as claimed in claim 3 (FF 5). A general allegation that
the art does not teach a claim limitation is no more than merely pointing out
the claim limitation. In that regard, a statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We decline to accept Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner has
failed to show that Scheer anticipates the claimed subject matter given that
much of the Examiner’s case in making the prima facie case of anticipation
remains unchallenged. To do so would put us in the position of acting as an
advocate for Appellant. Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164
F.3d 110, 112, 49 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Appellant's Brief is
at best an invitation to the court to scour the record, research any legal
theory that comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate for appellant.
We decline the invitation.")
We find that the Examiner has satisfied his burden of showing that
Scheer describes the claimed subject matter and all its limitations. Appellant
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013