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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013