Appeal 2007-1712
Application 10/696,395
associating a television with a carrier frequency, and that Ellis teaches
associating a television with a user; therefore, the asserted combination
teaches associating a carrier frequency with a particular user.
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 stating that Sheppard in combination with Ellis meets the claim
limitation of a decoded first video information stream modulated to a first
radio frequency band (or carrier frequency) associated with a first user, and a
decoded second video information stream modulated to a second radio
frequency band (or carrier frequency) associated with a second user.
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013