Appeal No. 2003-0506 Page 12
Application No. 09/264,766
have suggested broadcasting on a second channel if a user terminal is disadvantaged.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-14 and 17-45, which fall
therewith.
Not separately arguing the patentability of claims 15 and 16, the appellants
implicitly rely on the aforementioned arguments. Having been unpersuaded by those
arguments, we affirm the rejection of claims 15 and 16.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-45 under § 103(a) are affirmed. "Any
arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a). Accordingly,
our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the brief. Any arguments or
authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at issue but are considered
waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
("[I]t is important that the applicant challenging a decision not be permitted to raise
arguments on appeal that were not presented to the Board.") No time for taking any
action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007