Ex Parte HEPNER et al - Page 7


                 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