Appeal No. 1997-4348 Page 8
Application No. 08/088,708
identification (CLID) which is subject to blocking while the
instant invention, using AIN, is not subject to blocking.
Therefore, contend appellants, Emery/Berman are not combinable
with Brennan. While we would agree with appellants with regard
to the deficiencies of Brennan in not using AIN and in using
CLID, the instant claims recite nothing about blocking or not
blocking calls. Thus, appellants’ argument in this regard is
not commensurate in scope with the claims and is, therefore,
not persuasive. Still further, appellants have not convinced
us as to why Emery and Berman would not be combinable in such a
manner as to arrive at, or suggest, the instant claimed subject
matter. We do not say that such an argument could not be made,
only that appellants have not made it. Arguments not made are
waived. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ 640, 642-43
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
We have sustained the rejection of claims 7 through 11,
16, 18, 19, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we have not
sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 6, 12, 14, 15,
20, 22 through 25, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007