Appeal 2007-0926
Application 09/818,303
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-in-part.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). Appellants
contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated by Reimer, or
rendered obvious by Reimer in combination with Wang or Menard, for
failure to disclose a key claimed element, and for failure to properly
combine the references. The element at issue is the claim limitation
“ascertaining if the query needs to be recast and prompting for user input if
the query needs to be recast”. The Examiner contends that each of the three
groups of claims is properly rejected.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-25, 27-
29, 31-38, 40-52, and 54-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for being anticipated
by Reimer.
1. Appellants have invented a method, system, and program
(hereinafter “method”) for accepting and answering questions
about specific segments of a TV program (claimed under the
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed2
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013