Ex Parte 5983207 et al - Page 4

                Appeal No. 2006-2083                                                                                                   
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,352                                                                                   
                                                              Discussion                                                               
                        In the appeal brief the patent owner does not separately argue the merits of any claim                         
                apart from that of claim 1 whose text is quoted in the appeal brief.  In its reply brief, however,                     
                the patent owner specifically argues the merits of the features of dependent claims 6-10.   We                         
                decline to consider the belated arguments in the reply brief directed to dependent claims 6-10.  It                    
                is axiomatic that issues not raised in an appellant’s opening brief are considered waived.                             
                Beckton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800, 17 USPQ2d 1097, 1103 (Fed.                              
                Cir. 1990); see also Cross Medical Products v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 424 F.3d 1293, 1321                            
                n.3, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1683 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(the court declining to address new arguments                            
                raised for the first time in a reply brief); Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d                   
                1368, 1375 n.4, 73 USPQ2d 1678, 1685 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(the court declined to address                                
                arguments not raised in the appellant’s opening brief).  Accordingly, we will consider the                             
                rejection of claim 1 over the silver certificate and Ohta.  The rejection of all other claims shall                    
                stand or fall with the rejection of claim 1.                                                                           
                        Per 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, means-plus-function recitations in a claim must be                       
                construed as covering the corresponding structure, material, or act disclosed in the specification                     
                for performing the specified function.  Claim 1 is the only independent claim and recites a                            
                computer system which includes these means-plus-function elements:  (1) a means for                                    
                maintaining records of the amount of said inventory of a valuable commodity stored in a secure                         
                facility (hereinafter “maintaining means”), (2) a means for creating electronic coins (hereinafter                     
                “creating means”), (3) a means for transmitting electronic coins to a system user (hereinafter                         
                “transmitting means”), (4) a means for receiving electronic coins from a payee (hereinafter                            




                                                                   4                                                                   


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007