Appeal No. 2002-2322
Application 09/094,314
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 appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants 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)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-13 based on
the teachings of Hapner taken alone. The examiner has indicated
how he finds the invention of these claims to be unpatentable
over the teachings of Hapner [answer, pages 7-10]. Appellants
have indicated that independent claims 1, 7 and 13 stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 3]. With respect to
representative claim 1, appellants argue that Hapner fails to
teach the creation of a means for coordinating the transaction
only if the predetermined triggering event has occurred as
claimed. Appellants argue that the various passages of Hapner
relied on by the examiner all fail to provide a teaching of this
limitation. They assert that no triggering event is taught in
Hapner nor a means for responding to a triggering event [brief,
pages 3-5]. The examiner responds that he interprets creating a
means as simply calling an agent, object, subprogram, macro or
program at the desired time and place. Thus, the examiner finds
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007