Appeal 2007-1481
Application 09/915,091
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 that 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).3
ISSUE
There are two principal issues in the appeal before us.
The first issue is whether the Examiner erred in holding that Van De
Berg teaches “combining the interference information of said each of the
frequency bands to produce a signal quality indication,” as required by claim
1.
The second issue is whether the Examiner erred in holding that Van
De Berg teaches “selecting a bandwidth of the at least one of the available
frequency bands,” as required by claim 13, or “selecting a bandwidth of the
frequency band,” as required by claim 22.
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). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013