Appeal 2006-2504
Application 09/422,998
repetitively, in accordance with the plain meaning of the recited term
“query” (Wookey ‘249, col. 3, l. 63 through col. 4, l. 1). We also note that
Appellants have failed to disclaim or disavow the Examiner’s reliance upon
a dictionary definition as representing the plain meaning of the recited term
“query.” Thus, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position that an artisan would have been motivated to use each of Wookey’s
diagnostic tests as a query to test for predefined system attribute conditions
for the purpose of issuing an alert (i.e., as requested and scheduled by a
client administrator). For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find the
integrated disclosure of Wookey ‘249 and Wookey ‘507 (incorporated by
reference) teaches or suggests all that is claimed. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Wookey.
We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2, 3,
5, and 11-12. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to the
dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative
independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over Wookey for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to representative claim 1.
Claim 4
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 4 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey. Appellants restate their
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013