Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
performing at least one of breaking up the one or more requests into
two or more smaller requests, merging two or more of the one or
more requests, coalescing two or more of the one or more requests,
and reconstituting the one or more requests.
(See dependent claims 9, 19, 37, and 47).
Issue 6
Do the following claim limitations argued by Appellant (shown in italics)
read on Roberts in the manner asserted by the Examiner?
wherein the at least one previously input specification includes at
least one of performance enhancement specifications, performance
enhancement goals, target system specifications and target system
goals
(See dependent claims 10, 21, 23, 38, 49, and 51).
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-56.
Accordingly, we affirm.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note the Examiner’s factual findings are not in dispute
except with respect to issues 1-6 (supra), as argued by Appellant in the Brief.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d
1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013