Appeal 2007-0210
Application 10/167,359
fully below. The Examiner contends that each of the 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 reverse the rejections.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004). The issue turns on
whether the references Dougall or Doshi, alone or in combination, render
obvious the claimed limitation “an update manager accessible by the
processor and adapted to obtain a listing identifying each of a plurality of
data packets corresponding to the update prior to a transfer of the update.”
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013