Appeal 2007-1268
Application 10/177,845
second window, communicating information
indicative of the event to the server;
forwarding information indicative of the
first application event from the sever to the second
application; and
replicating the first application event on the
second client system with the second event code
sequence.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ohkado US 2001/0016873 A1 Aug. 23, 2001
(Filed February 15, 2001)
Elliott US 6,690,654 B2 Feb. 10, 2004
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ohkado and Elliot.
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 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013