Appeal 2006-3430 Application 10/178,439 Kogan, for reasons to be discussed more fully below. The Examiner contends that each of the three groups of claims is properly rejected. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2 We affirm the rejections. ISSUE The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a). The issue turns on a number of arguments, including whether Morales teaches that executable code compiled from source code written in Structured Rule Language (SRL) is placed in the repository 108 of Morales. (Br. 6) The issue further turns on Appellants’ contention that Morales does not show the limitation “determining a category of the transaction order…” as expressed in claim 4 (Br. 9). Appellants further contend that the teaching of Morales does not necessarily extend to compilers for creating the executable code. (Br. 10). 2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those claims, they 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). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013