Appeal No. 2007-0095
Application No. 09/843,566
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ
685, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004)].
With respect to independent claims 1, 17, and 31, it is the
examiner’s position that Anderson discloses a processor and
memory connected thereto (referring to column 5, lines 7-26), a
first screen (referring to Figure 11) being divided into a
plurality of cells with each cell being associated with a
different segment of an image (referring to column 6, lines
25-40), and a second screen used to display one of the different
segments to the user (referring to Figure 9 and column 6, lines
25-40 and 52-65). The examiner acknowledges that Anderson does
not disclose a first and second window. The examiner turns to
Angiulo, specifically Figures 2 and 6-8, and to “lines 10-25” of
some unidentified column (see page 3 of the answer), and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007