Appeal No. 2003-0549 Page 13
Application No. 09/149,408
ll. 59-60, to reformat the page. One such "system process rotates the current page."
Col. 8, l. 9. Because the reference's information processing system operates on a copy
of an electronic document stored temporarily in its memory 10, we find that Coleman
reformats a page of the copy of the electronic document. Therefore, we affirm the
anticipation rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under § 102(e) and the rejections of
claims 6-11, 15, 16, and 20 under § 103(a) are reversed. The rejection of claim 21
under § 102(e), however, is 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
briefs. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom 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 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007