Appeal No. 2004-1379
Application No. 09/823,458
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, 1051-52, 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 § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)).
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner essentially finds that Amin teaches the claimed
invention except that Amin fails to disclose that the user
preferences to be filtered are stored in the portable
communication device. The examiner finds that this is well known
in the art as evidenced by Titmuss. The examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to apply the Titmuss
concept to the Amin portable communication device in order to
deliver more relevant information to the user (answer, pages 3-
4).
Appellants argue that the rejection is improper because
the modification of Amin proposed by the examiner would render
the structure of Amin unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007