Appeal 2007-1341
Application 09/894,065
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16-21, and 23-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by McCormack.
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
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue turns on whether
McCormack discloses each and every limitation of the claims.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. McCormack describes techniques for selecting and viewing
information about groups of devices within a network. (Abstract;
col. 1, ll. 6-8.) McCormack teaches a filter mechanism that is coupled
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013