Appeal 2006-2594
Application 10/034,394
do not challenge the rejection of the individual claims "with any reasonable
specificity," In re Nielsen, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987), these do not constitute arguments for the separate
patentability of these claims.2 Therefore, we select claim 1 as the sole claim
on which to decide the appeal of claims 1-7 and 15-21.
Similar to claims 2-7 and 16-21, the Appellant merely points out what
claims 9-14 recite and alleges that such limitations are not taught by the
references. Because these allegations do not challenge the rejection of the
individual claims "with any reasonable specificity," id., these allegations do
not constitute arguments for the separate patentability of these claims. 3
Therefore, we select claim 8 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal
of claims 8-14. With these representations in mind, rather than reiterate the
positions of the Examiner or the Appellant in toto, we focus on the following
issues therebetween:
• motivation to combine Bickmore and Patil
• placeholders having labels corresponding to buttons
• controller for scanning and replacing.
III. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE BICKMORE AND PATEL
The Examiner finds that column 1, lines 55-62, of Patil would have
"cause[d] one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an alternate method of
choosing an onscreen object, which Patil does by using shortcut keys that
correspond the onscreen objects." (Answer 7.) The Appellant alleges "that
2 Assuming arguendo that they did constitute separate arguments, they fail
to show any error in the Examiner's rejections.
3 Assuming arguendo that they did constitute separate arguments, they fail
to show any error in the Examiner's rejections.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013