Appeal No. 2004-1676
Application 09/263,918
suggesting a segmentation and reassembly (SAR) software module
implemented in a CPU of a personal computer is repeated
throughout the brief and reply brief.
We see and address two limitations intertwined in
appellants' arguments: (1) a SAR software module executed on a
CPU; and (2) the CPU is a CPU of a personal computer. Arguments
not made are considered to be abandoned and have not been
addressed. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (2002) (brief must point
out errors in the rejection). Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is
not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious
distinctions over the prior art."); In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1367, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Just as it is
important that the PTO in general be barred from raising new
arguments on appeal to justify or support a decision of the
Board, it is important that the applicant challenging a decision
not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not
presented to the Board." (Footnote omitted.))
(1)
As to the SAR software module executing on a CPU, the
examiner finds that Kwak teaches SAR software at column 1,
lines 10-13, and column 2, lines 4-24 (EA5). The examiner states
(EA5): "Although Kwak does not explicitly show a SAR software
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007