Appeal 2007-0727
Application 09/951,711
40-49, which describes determining which network control protocols are
needed and learning information that is necessary for successful proxy
operations, and col. 10, lines 4-7, which describes using the learned
information to bring up the network control protocols of the network
endpoint application with which the local endpoint wants to communicate.
All of this functionality is also supported by the problem-solution
scenario discussed at column 1, lines 34-65 of Kralowetz. Additionally,
Appellants’ remarks at page 2 of the Reply Brief do not obviate all noted,
compelling teachings in this reference.
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 6-8, 14-16, 22-24, and
30-32. In the absence of separate arguments with respect to the dependent
claims, those claims 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). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Kralowetz for
the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 9, 17, and 25.
Appellants assert that claims 3-5, 11-13, 19-21, and 27-29 are
allowable as depending from allowable base claims “for at least the reasons
described above” with respect to claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 (pages 9-10 of the
Brief). As discussed above, we see no deficiencies with respect to
Kralowetz. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 3-5,
11-13, 19-21, and 27-29, instead relying only on the alleged deficiencies of
Kralowetz. In the absence of separate arguments with respect to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013