Appeal No. 2002-2077
Application No. 09/273,363
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 explains his rejections on pages 3-7 of the
answer. With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
appellant argues that Humble does not teach or suggest an
emulator module connected to the self-checkout core application
module for emulating, independent from the self-checkout core
application, a native vendor software application as claimed.
Specifically, appellant argues that there is no emulator module
in Humble because the central processor in Humble knows which
mode the checkout terminal is in and controls the terminal
accordingly [brief, pages 7-9]. The examiner responds that since
Humble teaches integrating two separate systems into one, then
the Humble system must inherently use an emulator to perform the
function of emulating two different things to operate as one
[answer, page 7]. Appellant responds that Humble does not teach
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007