Appeal 2007-1541
Application 10/334,695
Floyd 6,802,031 B2 Oct. 5, 2004
(filed May 24, 2001)
Doi 6,839,869 B2 Jun. 4, 2005
(filed May 8, 2001)
Claims 1-8 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Berry in view of Doi.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Berry in view of Doi and Floyd.
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Berry in view of Doi and Madduri.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Berry teaches
setting a single privilege flag, rather than the plurality claimed, and because
there would have been no motivation by one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine Berry and Doi to arrive at the invention. The Examiner contends
that Berry does teach multiple privilege flags, and that the cited references
are sufficiently related to form a legally permissible combination.
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).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 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013