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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013