Appeal No. 2003-0425
Application 08/773,692
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
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
[see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 19,
22, 23 and 25-29 based on the teachings of Baker and Dascalu.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8 and 19 stand or fall together as a first group
[brief, page 3], and we will consider independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this group. With respect to
representative claim 1, the examiner essentially finds that Baker
teaches the claimed invention except that Baker does not teach
restricting access based on the determination of the type of
protocol. The examiner finds that restricting access to specific
clients, resources and protocols is well known in the art as
disclosed by Dascalu. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to restrict access based on the type of
protocol being used [answer, pages 3-4].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007