Appeal No. 2005-2338
Application No. 09/754,001
discloses emailing a URL to the user. We find that Strandberg states in
paragraph 20 “to electronically connect to the URL address of the Web page 120
provided in the electronic mail sent to the interested party.” Thus, while we
agree with appellants that Teper, in column 9, lines 38-46 and 55-57, does not
disclose emailing a URL to the user, we find that Strandberg does teach this
limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Finally, we note that appellants’ arguments, on pages 11 and 12 of the
brief, do not directly address claims 7 and 8 nor indirectly address any of the
limitations of claims 7 and 8. Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1 and claim 8 is
dependent upon claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons stated supra with respect
to claim 1.
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 or by filing a reply brief have not been considered and are
deemed waived by appellants (see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii)). Support for this rule
has been demonstrated by our reviewing court in In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975,
984, 61 USPQ2d 1523, 1528-1529 (Fed. Cir. 2002) wherein the Federal Circuit
stated that because the appellant did not contest the merits of the rejections in
his brief to the Federal Circuit, the issue is waived. See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007