Appeal No. 2001-1764 Page 3
Application No. 08/784,670
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim:
43. A computer-implemented method for presenting a first menu
comprising:
receiving a request to present said first menu; and
presenting said menu, said menu having at least some menu items
arranged based on two or more heuristic factors, wherein at least one of
said two or more heuristic factors is selected from the group consisting of
recency of menu item selection, frequency of menu item selection, and
time of day of menu item selection, and wherein said menu is selected
from the group consisting of a fixed content menu, a variable content
menu, and a mixed menu.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-14, 16-17, 23, 25, 29, 31-33, 36, 39, and 43 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 4,862,498 (“Reed”) in view of
U.S. Patent No 5,119,475 (“Smith”).
OPINION
At the outset, we recall that claims that are not argued separately stand or fall
together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). Here, the appellant
groups “claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 25, 29, 31-33, and 43 . . . together,” (Appeal Br. at 4);
“[c]laims 10-12 and 36 . . . together,” (id. at 3-4); and “[c]laims 13, 14, 23, and 39 . . .
together. . . . “ (Id. at 4.) Therefore, claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, 25, 29, and 31-33 stand or
fall with representative claim 43; claims 10-12 stand or fall with representative claim 36;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007