Appeal 2007-1267
Application 09-967617
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
We affirm.
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) as indicated
above. Each of the rejections has been argued separately.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 1 to 4 and 18 to 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
1. Appellants have invented a television distribution system using
a plurality of antenna systems (satellites, stratospheric
platforms and cellular towers) to distribute signals from a
gateway station (#20, #21 in Figure 1). User terminals in either
mobile (airplane, car, handheld) or fixed locations get
continuous connection to the stream of signals from a
combination of the antenna systems. (Spec, ¶ 0033 ff).
3 Appellants 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013