Appeal No. 2006-1757
Application No. 10/116,522
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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 briefs 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
deemed to be fully met by the disclosure of Cepulis [answer,
pages 3-6]. Regarding independent claim 1,1 appellants argue
that Cepulis does not disclose "skipping over each device that is
identified in a data structure" as claimed [brief, page 11]. In
this regard, appellants contend that block 202 in the flow chart
shown in Fig. 2 of Cepulis (clearing out the logical resource
map) actually prevents skipping over each device identified in a
data structure as claimed [brief, page 13]. According to
appellants, because the logical resource map only comes into
existence at the end of the flowchart (i.e., step 216) and no other
processes or steps follow this step, the recited skipping cannot
occur during any activity in Cepulis' flowchart [id.].
1 Appellants indicate that independent claim 1 is representative of the first
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007