Appeal No. 2004-1026 Page 10 Application No. 09/028,480 area of the screen are easily recognized." Col. 1, ll. 27-29. See Col. 13, l. 1 - col. 17, l. 20 (describing "Gesture-Based Editing.") In other words, gesture-based editing is provided in this document area of the display. Turning to Tannenbaum, we previously found that the reference detects where a pointing device is put down on a display. "[T]he user is not restricted to drawing the gesture completely within the window of the target application." Col. 18, ll. 58-59. Even if he moves the gesture into another area of the display, the system remains focused of the pen-down position. When the teachings of Forcier and Tannenbaum were combined, we find that once a user put down a pointing pen in the command area of Forcier's document display, gesture-based editing would have been prevented even if the pen was moved into the document area of the display during a stroke of the pen. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 19. CONCLUSION In summary, the rejection of claims 9 and 19 under § 103(a) 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 brief. 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, 1367, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important that the applicant challenging a decision not be permitted to raisePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007