Appeal No. 2001-2267
Application 08/828,687
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11
and 12 based on the admitted prior art and Carr. These claims
stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 3], and we
will consider independent claim 1 as the representative claim for
this group. The examiner has indicated how he finds the
invention of claim 1 to be obvious over the teachings of the
admitted prior art and Carr [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant
argues that the admitted prior art does not support the broad
assertions made by the examiner. Specifically, appellant argues
that he has not admitted that it is known to provide a common
interface to different applications but has stated only the
problem solved by the present invention. Appellant notes that
the gateway application described in the background of this
application is not the common interface but is the application
which conforms to the standard of the common interface.
Appellant also argues that Carr does not support the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007