Appeal 2007-0833
Application 10/280,254
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kikinis.
B. Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11 through 13, 15 through 17, 19, 22
and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kikinis and Ha.
C. Claims 10, 18, 24 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kikinis, Ha and Aguilar.
Appellants contend1 that Kikinis does not anticipate claims 20, 21, 23,
25, 26 and 28. First, Appellants contend that, as evidenced in column 2,
lines 25-32, Kikinis does not provide an enabling disclosure to disable the
microcontroller such that it operates as a slave unit of the CPU. Similarly
Appellants contend that Kikinis does not provide an enabling disclosure to
automatically update data files, as evidenced in column 2, lines 49-53. (Br.
6 and 7.) In response, the Examiner contends that Appellants failed to show
that the textual portions of Kikinis relied upon to reject the claims are not
enabling. (Answer 9.)
Next, Appellants contend that Kikinis does not fairly teach or
suggest a processing module for (1) upon detecting a first external condition,
retrieving a first set of operational instructions for an extended memory
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). We have
therefore not considered Appellants’ previously submitted arguments, which
are presently incorporated by reference in Appellants’ Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013