Appeal No. 2002-0275
Application No. 09/215,752
data value stream to a Persistent Object Service. As we have noted previously,
appellants have not explained the perception that Maruyama cannot relate to a “soft
format” -- whatever appellants may mean by the term -- or, more important, how the
instant claims might relate to the argued feature. Appellants having not shown error in
the rejection of claims 36, 43, or 47, we sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
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)(iii),(iv) (the brief must point out the errors in the rejection).
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed. The rejection of claims 7, 16, 18, 22, 24, 27, 28, 32,
33, 35, 37, 40, 42, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. The rejection
of claims 11, 12, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43-45, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-14, 16, 18-20, 22, and
24-47 is thus affirmed-in-part.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007