Appeal 2007-1122
Application 09/966,414
a broad description defining non-target data
selections,
the recommendations being derived from a space of
selections lying between the broad and narrow descriptions.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Payton US 5,790,935 Aug. 4, 1998
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Payton.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants 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
2 Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims or related claims in each group. 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). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013