Appeal 2006-2594
Application 10/034,394
Bickmore also discloses that its "Digestor performs a depth-first search of
the document transformation space, using many heuristics that describe
preconditions for transformations and combinations of transformations."
(P. 539.) "Each state in the transformation space represents a version of the
document, with the initial state representing the original 'as-authored'
document (see Figure 6)." (Id.) We also find that the Digestor constitutes a
controller and that its searching constitutes scanning a document for tags
associated with graphical images. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 8 and of claims 9-14, which fall therewith.
VI. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-21 under § 103(a) is affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief or a reply brief
filed pursuant to [37 C.F.R.] § 41.41 will be refused consideration by the
Board, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
brief. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before us
nor at issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1367, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important that the
applicant challenging a decision not be permitted to raise arguments on
appeal that were not presented to the Board.") No time for taking any action
connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013