Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 9
Application No. 09/207,420
Cir. 1986). Here, we agree with the appellant that the passage of Fehskens cited by
the examiner "describes various fields within an entity definition. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
The examiner fails to show, however, that any of the fields constitutes a conditional
statement, which results in an outcome specified therein when a specified condition is
fulfilled, linked to at least one entity. The absence of such a showing negates
anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 4.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under § 102(e) is affirmed. The
rejection of claim 4 under § 102(e), however, is reversed. "Any arguments or
authorities not included in the brief[s] will be refused consideration by the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a) (2002). Accordingly, our
affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the briefs. Any arguments or
authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at issue but are considered
waived. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007