Appeal No. 2003-1829
Application No. 08/994,878
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 27,
filed February 10, 2003) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that on page 4 of the
Brief, appellant indicates that the claims are to stand or fall
together. In accordance therewith, appellant has presented no
separate arguments of patentability as to the dependent claims
nor the additional reference of Schneier for claims 6 and 8.
Therefore, we will treat the claims as a single group with claim
5 as representative. Appellant should note in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a) (which was in effect at the time of the
Brief) arguments not included in the brief are considered waived.
See also, In re Berger, 61 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 2002) and
Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323,
1344, 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2001), in which the Federal
Circuit held that issues not raised in the Brief are waived.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 5 through 8.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007