Appeal No. 96-0587
Application 07/927,543
choosing a satisficing solution to satisfy all of said
constraints in response to said evaluating step.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Sriram, D., ALL-RISE: A Case Study in Constraint-Based
Design, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Vol. 2,
No. 4 (1987), pages 186-203.
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter as a
mathematical algorithm has been withdrawn (Examiner's Answer,
page 8).
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24-28, 30, 32,
33, 36, and 42-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sriram.
The examiner's statement of the rejection is contained in
the Final Rejection (Paper No. 6) and the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 12). Appellant's position is set forth in the Brief
(Paper No. 11).
OPINION
Appellants state that the rejected claims do not stand or
fall together (Brief, page 6). However, appellants only
separately argue claims 1, 12, 19, 20, 24, 27, and 42 (Brief,
pages 13-14). Accordingly, unargued claims will be presumed to
stand or fall together with the argued claims on which they
depend. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) (1994) ("it will be presumed
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007