Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
that a probability space encompasses a range from zero to one. Therefore,
we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 13 for the same
reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 9, noting that
appellant has failed to separately argue claim 13 in the briefs [see answer,
page 6]. See 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
As per claims 15-17, 19 and 23-25: [brief, pages 7 and 8]
Since appellant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims
15-17, 19 and 23-25 have treated these claims as a single group which
stand or fall together, we will consider independent claim 15 as the
representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the brief:
Independent claim 15, which is similar to independent claim 1,
is directed to a computer-readable medium having computer-
executable instructions for performing steps that include “receiving
an indication that a user wants to exclude an item from
consideration without receiving an indication that a user has
selected an item.” As in the case of claim 1, the Office Action
suggests that Horiguchi does not show this limitation, but relies on
Robinson. (Citing FIG. 4F and the corresponding text.)
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007