Appeal 2006-2504
Application 09/422,998
group which stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 18 as
the representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
With respect to this group, Appellants essentially restate the same
arguments previously presented for claim 1 (Br. 16-18). Because we have
found supra that Wookey teaches receiving a request from a client, and
querying the system as specified by the request, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 18 as being unpatentable over
Wookey for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 20 and 22. 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 at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. 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 18.
Claim 7
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey in view of Sybase.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s motivation for combining Wookey with
Sybase is improper because Wookey, without modification or combination
with Sybase, already provides the function of issuing an alert indicating a
predefined condition exists in a computer system (Br. 19).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013