Appeal No. 1999-1602
Application No. 08/776,957
identified in O’Neill’s Figure 4 does not appear to change in perspective as the virtual
user moves about the virtual area. We find it unclear how the limitations of claims 3 and
8 might be disclosed or suggested by Figure 6 of O’Neill, or by any other portion of the
disclosure. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill and Goh.
We have considered all of appellants’ arguments in making our determinations.
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.”) and
§1.192(c)(8)(iv) (the brief must point out the errors in the rejection).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007