Appeal 2007-1416
Application 09/881,791
using the sentences marked as testable to determine whether a test suite
for testing the computer program is adequate.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pavela US 6,332,211 B1 Dec. 18, 2001
(filed Dec. 28, 1998)
“Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary”, Third Edition, 28, 1997.
Rejection:
Claims 1 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
obvious over Pavela in view of Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
(MPCD) definition of application programming interface (API).
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Pavela alone, or in combination with MPCD, for failure of the
references to teach important claimed limitations. The Examiner contends
that the claims are properly rejected.
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 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013