Appeal No. 2001-0041
Application No. 08/661,899
Appellant’s arguments that are commensurate in scope with claims 29 and 35 --
that is, those that speak to the language and actual requirements of the claims -- thus
do not persuade us of error in the rejection over the combination of references applied.
We therefore sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 29 and 35 over Ryan, Rovin,
and Stewart. We have considered all of appellant’s arguments, but arguments not
relied upon are deemed waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (“Any arguments or
authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, unless good cause is shown.”)
Claims 42-45
Appellant groups claims 42-45 together, and advances arguments on their behalf
at pages 13 through 15 of the Brief. We select claim 42 as representative of the
subject matter. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) ("For each ground of rejection which
appellant contests and which applies to a group of two or more claims, the Board shall
select a single claim from the group and shall decide the appeal as to the ground of
rejection on the basis of that claim alone....").
Claim 42 recites that the regularly scheduled event is a “regulated event
mandated” by a list of alternative entities. We agree with the examiner’s position, as
set forth at pages 7 and 8 of the Answer. The fact that governmental requirement of
regularly scheduled events with respect to motor vehicles, such as periodic inspections
of vehicle systems, is so widely known that official notice may be taken. Appellant has
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007