Appeal 2007-1447
Application 10/214,588
Appellant contends1 that Mighdoll does not anticipate claims 1
through 3 and 7. Particularly, Appellant contends that Mighdoll does not
fairly teach or suggest a document display apparatus, as recited in
representative claim 1. (Br. 7, Reply Br. 3.)2 For this same reason,
Appellant further contends that Mighdoll does not anticipate claims 2, 3, and
7. (Br. 13-14.) The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Mighdoll teaches
the cited limitation. (Answer 4 and 8.) The Examiner therefore concludes
that Mighdoll anticipates claims 1 through 3 and 7. (Id).
We affirm.
ISSUES
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that
Mighdoll anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
when Mighdoll teaches an apparatus with a distributed architecture for
displaying received hypertext documents?
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004.)
2 Appellant reiterates the same argument at the Oral Hearing held on May 9,
2007.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013