Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
locations 4 through “n” (i.e., where “n” equals the number of words in the
index) [see brief, page 6, ¶3]. We do not find that the support proffered by
appellant (found in Robinson at col. 31, line 60 through col. 32, line 10)
resolves the issue in the manner asserted by appellant, as Robinson uses the
qualifier, “where appropriate, to decrease the frequency of words not
selected” and Robinson merely indicates that words in the list at positions
(IDX/2) down through (IDX1) are moved down (i.e., demoted) one position
in the list [reply brief, page 5, ¶2; see also Robinson col. 31, lines 58-66].
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that appellant’s assumptions are not
supported by the teachings of Robinson. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Horiguchi in view of Robinson. We note that dependent claims 2, 3, 7-10
and 14 do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 since appellant has not
separately argued the patentability of these claims with respect to this
rejection. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Accordingly,
we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 7-10 and 14 as
being unpatentable over Horiguchi in view of Robinson.
As per claim 11:
Appellant notes that claim 11 includes changing the linguistic grammar
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007