Appeal 2007-0719
Application 09/731,205
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 1 through 12 and 16 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sorkin and Irie.
B. Claims 13 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sorkin, Irie, and Suzuki.1
First, Appellants contend2 that the combination of Sorkin and Irie
does not render claims 1 through 12 and 16 through 23 unpatentable.
Particularly, Appellants contend that Sorkin does not teach the following
limitations as recited in independent claim 1: (A) an interface controller in
direct communication with the document processing device, (B) control data
communicated between the network interface and the document processing
device, and (C) the interface controller being in parallel communication with
the document processing device and the document processing device
controller. (Br. 5 and 6, Reply Br. 2 and 3.) Similarly, Appellants contend
that Irie does not teach a document processing device controller for
translating job data in a format executable by the processing device, as
recited in independent claim 1. (Br. 6; Reply Br. 3.)
1 Appellants’ amended Brief and Reply Brief failed to particularly address
this ground of rejection. We note that Appellants’ arguments at pages 9
through 15 of the Brief generally discuss the rejection of claims 9 through 18
with respect to Sorkin and Irie. Since Appellants have not provided any
separate arguments with respect to the combination of Sorkin, Irie and
Suzuki, we deem such arguments to be waived and we will let claims 13-15
stand or fall with their parent dependent claim 8. See infra note 2.
2 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellant 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 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013