Appeal 2007-1602
Application 09/940,596
Regarding the above rejection, Appellant contends1 that Tuchitoi does
not fairly teach or suggest sending a command to a system to launch the
browser or service to a particular network location if a predetermined event
is determined to have occurred, as recited in claim 1. (Br. 4, Reply Br. 4.)
In response, the Examiner contends that Tuchitoi’s disclosure of launching a
pop-up message to indicate that a print job has reached a predetermined
status teaches Appellant’s claimed launching of a browser or service to a
network location upon the occurrence of a predetermined event. (Answer 3,
7 and 8.)
ISSUE
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
Has Appellant shown2 that the Examiner failed to establish that the
disclosure of Tuchitoi anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C.
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).
Appellant did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of claims 2 through 14 and as being anticipated by Tuchitoi.
Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as being representative of these
claims. Claims 2 through 14 consequently fall together with representative
claim 1. 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).
2 In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When
that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to rebut. Id.; see
also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1954-55 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (finding rebuttal evidence unpersuasive). If the applicant
produces rebuttal evidence of adequate weight, the prima facie case of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013