Appeal 2007-0660
Application 10/116,574
Appellant contends1 that the combination of Taylor and Kuroda does
not render claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 through 13 unpatentable.
Particularly, Appellant contends that the combination of Taylor and Kuroda
does not fairly teach or suggest providing an audible warning that the
automatic shutdown is imminent, at a pre-designated time prior to the
automatic shutdown, as recited in representative claim 1. (Br. 5, Reply Br.
5). Appellant also contends that the cited combination does not fairly teach
or suggest automatically re-enabling the automatic shutdown to occur after
the pre-specified period of inactivity, upon a subsequent power up of the
handheld device, as recited in representative claim 1. (Br. 8, Reply Br. 4).
For these same reasons, Appellant further contends that the combination of
Taylor and Kuroda does not render claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 through 13
unpatentable. (Br. 9-13, Reply Br. 6). The Examiner, in contrast, contends
that the combination of Taylor and Kuroda teaches the cited limitations of
representative claim 1. (Answer 4 and 9). The Examiner therefore
concludes that the combination of Taylor and Kuroda renders claims 1, 3, 4,
6, 7, 9, and 11 through 13 unpatentable. (Id.)
We affirm.
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013