Appeal No. 2005-1705
Application 09/455,956
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
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, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant 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)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-
32, 37, 38, 41 and 42 based on the teachings of Lobb, Moriarty
and Eiba. The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be unpatentable over the collective teachings of
Lobb, Moriarty and Eiba [Final Rejection, pages 2-4]. With
respect to independent claims 1 and 12, appellant argues that the
applied references fail to teach or suggest that 1) the sports
server determines a type of mobile terminal used and display
parameters of the mobile terminal and that the sports server
selects a prompt display to be communicated to the mobile
terminal based on the determined display parameters of the mobile
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007