Appeal No. 2005-1804 5
Application No. 08/882,197
1048, 1052, 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)].
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is
rendered obvious by the teachings of O’Toole and Davis [answer,
pages 3-9]. Appellants have indicated that all the appealed
claims stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 5],
so we will consider independent claim 3 as representative of all
the claims on appeal. With respect to representative claim 3,
appellants argue that O’Toole fails to teach a first agent or a
user rule page containing information automatically obtained from
the target computer by a first agent having a trigger program to
filter information and to determine whether the information is
relevant to the user rule page. Appellants argue that the
portions of O’Toole cite by the examiner fail to teach the
claimed user rule page. Appellants also argue that O’Toole fails
to teach the claim limitations related to the claimed rule book
based on the user rule page. On this point, appellants argue
that the client avatar 210 and the client personal profile are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007