Appeal 2007-1063
Application 09/881,594
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thomas US 2002/0184316 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
Roach US 2002/0037723 A1 Mar. 28, 2002
Claims 1-4, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33-36, 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Thomas. Claims 5 and 6 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Thomas in view of
Roach.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in that Thomas does not
anticipate nor render obvious the claimed invention, because Thomas
teaches repeatedly initiating communication, rather than maintaining an
existing communication path. The Examiner argues that Thomas may fairly
be read to meet the claims, because while Thomas may use different
terminology, his invention performs the same functions claimed by
Appellant.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that 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).3
3 Appellant has 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013