Appeal 2007-0919
Application 10/179,555
(d) activating a process associated with the activated touchable
element when the multi-function machine is operating in the first
mode;
(e) audibly informing a user of the selectable menu option
associated with the activated touchable element when the multi-
function machine is operating in the second mode and the activated
touchable element has been non-consecutively engaged;
(f) activating a process associated with the activated touchable
element and audibly informing a user of the selected menu option
associated with the activated touchable element when the multi-
function machine is operating in the second mode and the activated
touchable element has been consecutively engaged; and
(g) audibly informing a user that the audible feedback function
is being disabled when the first mode of operating the multi-function
machine has been selected.
Appellant contends that claims 4 and 5 would not have been obvious
over the combination of Vanderheiden and Furuhata.1 Particularly,
Appellant contends that Vanderheiden does not fairly teach or suggest
audibly informing a user that the audible feedback function is being disabled
when the user transitions from a second mode to a first mode of operating
the multi-function machine, as recited in claim 4 (Br. 5; Reply Br. 3).
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant
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 CFR 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 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013