Appeal No. 2000-0454
Application 08/377,027
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
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)].
The examiner finds that Baggi teaches the claimed
invention except that Baggi does not disclose prestored tunes of
simultaneously played parts nor an amen selector which causes the
synthesizer to play a plagal cadence at the end. The examiner
cites Tabata as disclosing the prestoring of harmony tunes. The
examiner notes that Tabata does not mention an amen signal, but
the examiner finds that an amen signal merely refers to
generating an ending phrase of an amen plagal cadence. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
combine the teachings of Tabata with the teachings of Baggi
[final rejection, Paper No. 19, incorporated into Examiner’s
Answer at page 3].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007