Appeal 2007-1696
Application 10/230,745
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-10 and 12-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Peck in view of Poynor.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in his rejection because
neither Peck nor Poynor teaches creating a substitute edit request for the one
or more characters (selected by the user) that differs from the edit operation
requested by the user, nor causing the browser to revise the document in
accordance with the substitute edit request (Br. 5-6). The Examiner
contends that Poynor meets these limitations of the claims, according to their
broadest reasonable interpretation (Examiner’s Answer 4, 8).
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
ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is whether the Examiner
erred in holding that Poynor teaches creating a substitute edit request that
differs from an edit operation requested by the user, and subsequently
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
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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013