Appeal No. 2001-2381
Application 09/025,155
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
[see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the teachings of Slotznick [answer,
pages 3-6]. Specifically, after essentially reading the
invention of claim 1 on the disclosure of Slotznick, the examiner
asserts that “[I]t would be obvious that the multitasking
application operates separate from the communications application
since code for displaying secondary information does not have to
be the same code ... and both the communications application and
multitasking application have separate windows.”
With respect to independent claims 28, 35 and 42, which
stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 5],
appellant argues that Slotznick does not teach or suggest
automatically switching focus from a communications application
to another active application in response to the initiation of a
link to a remote network site. More particularly, appellant
argues that Slotznick relates to a single application that
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007