Appeal 2007-0761 Application 09/907,610 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 We affirm. ISSUE The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and § 103(a). The issue turns on whether the Kennelly reference teaches the elements of claims 1 to 8, 11 to 20, and 22 to 24 sufficiently to anticipate them, and whether the teachings of Kennelly’s multi-language user interface can be combined with the teachings of icons in Mullaney and audio files in Sameth to render claims 9, 10, and 21 obvious over the respective references. FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 11 to 20, and 22 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 1. Appellants have invented a user interface system and method by which the Graphical User Interface (GUI) of a computer program can be adapted to display one of several languages quickly and without 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). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013