Appeal No. 1999-1605
Application 08/502,882
device driver is not an "application" as broadly claimed, nor
countered the Examiner's assertion that "the corresponding
interface and driver in the processor system have to activate
after the processor system identif[ies] the remote control
device (2,3)" (FR5). There must be a predetermined
association between a certain type of transmitter as a
function of the device code (the "identifying signal") and a
routing of data ("a representation of the desired user
interaction") to the proper driver for execution because
Tanaka teaches processing the data based on the device codes
(col. 3, lines 7-10). Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection. Arguments not
made are considered waived. Cf. In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d
927, 936, 152 USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA 1967) ("This court has
uniformly followed the sound rule that an issue raised below
which is not argued in this court, even if it has been
properly brought here by a reason of appeal, is regarded as
abandoned and will not be considered. It is our function as a
court to decide disputed issues, not to create them."). For
these reasons, the rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
Claim 1
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007