Appeal 2007-1051
Application 10-161428
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not 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 reverse the rejection.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on whether
the Traversat and Teng references teach the claimed bulletin board
comprising lists of received requests and other claim limitations.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant has invented a P2P network arrangement in which a
central computer contains not the usual list of files available on
various nodes of the network, as, for example, in the Napster model,
but instead contains a list of requests for files (music, documents,
computer programs, etc.) that users of one node wish to have sent to
themselves from other nodes on the network. (Specification 1-2).
According to the invention, this list is available to be downloaded
periodically to member nodes of the network, which may scan the
2 Appellant 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013