Appeal 2007-0601
Application 09/792,290
Claims 1-3 and 9-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by DeNicola. Claims 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over DeNicola in view of Shiigi.
Appellants contend that the subject matter of claims 1-3 and 9-19 is
not anticipated, and that of claims 4-8 is not obvious, in that DeNicola does
not teach transmitting processed feedback received from at least two of the
group members (back) to the networked devices operated by the group
members. The Examiner contends that DeNicola does teach transmitting
processed feedback (in the form of exam results) back to individual group
members, and the claim language does not require that processed feedback
be the combined feedback of plural group members.
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 that 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
ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is whether the claim
language “providing processed feedback … received from at least two of
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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013