Ex Parte Mizuki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 9, 201813771651 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/771,651 02/20/2013 Kiyoshi MIZUKI SJP-723-3657 9488 27562 7590 01/11/2018 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER MOHAMMADI, KAMRAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2446 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIYOSHI MIZUKI, HIDETO YUZAWA, and SHUNSAKU RATO Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,6511 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1—25, which are all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nintendo Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention "relate[] to technology for accessing a service that shares information." Spec. 1,1. 9. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 14, 19, 22, and 23, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases and formatting added to contested limitations): 1. An information-processing system, comprising: a storage device configured to store a list of identification information of one or more users of other information processing devices; and a processing system having at least one processor, the processing system configured to: execute at least one of a plurality of programs including a first program, that is a client software of an information sharing service, for accessing the information sharing service and a second program that is system software and differs from the first program, [LI] independently register, in the storage device, identification information of another user, through execution of the first program, the first program causing the information processing 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Jan. 17, 2017); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 21, 2017); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 21, 2017); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 17, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Feb. 20, 2013). 2 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 system to obtain information posted by the users included in the list, and [L2] independently register, in the storage device, identification information of another user, through execution of the second program, the second program causing the information processing system to manage the list. 14. An information-processing system capable of executing a first program and a second program, the information-processing system comprising: a storage device configured to store, for each of the programs, a list for registering identification information of other users, wherein, when the list for the first program has been updated, the list for the second program is updated to a same content. 19. [18. The information-processing system according to claim 1, wherein the information is registered in a list stored in the storage device and commonly accessible by the plurality of programs being executed,] The information processing system according to claim 18, wherein the storage device of the information-processing system stores at least the first and second programs, and the first and second programs are configured to access the list stored in the storage device and register information of users. 22. An information-processing system, comprising: a storage device configured to store at least a friends list and a favorites list; and a processing system having at least one processor, the processing system configured to: execute at least system software and portal software, the portal software accessing an information sharing service; 3 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 register identification information of a first user in the friends list through execution of at least the portal software and the system software', and register identification information of a second user in the favorites list through execution of the portal software. 23. The information-processing system of claim 22, wherein the friends list is modifiable by both the portal software and the system software, whereas the favorites list is only modifiable by the portal software. Prior-art The Examiner relies upon the following prior-art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Yamashita et al. ("Yamashita") US 6,755,743 B1 June 29, 2004 Rao US 2008/0299953 Al Dec. 4, 2008 Mayer US 2009/0089806 Al Apr. 2, 2009 Becker US 2010/0287212 Al Nov. 11,2010 Sadamoto US 2012/0036189 Al Feb. 9, 2012 Park et al. ("Park") US 2012/0174156 Al July 5, 2012 Tseng US 2012/0303652 Al Nov. 29, 2012 4 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 Rejections on AppeaP Rl. Claims 1, 3—6, 11—13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sadamoto and Mayer. Final Act. 9. R2. Claims 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sadamoto, Mayer, and Yamashita. Final Act. 14. R3. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sadamoto, Mayer, and Tseng. Final Act. 16. R4. Claims 14—17, 20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sadamoto and Becker. Final Act. 18. 3 In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner's attention as to whether at least independent claims 1, 11—14, and 22 are drawn to patent- ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ineligible abstract ideas have been identified by the courts by way of example, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea "of itself," and mathematical relationship s/formulas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBankInt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355—56 (2014). Although use of a processor and/or a storage device (memory) is nominally recited in various ways in the independent claims, a question arises as to whether the claims, when considered as a whole, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself of storing and updating information in one or more lists. We leave further consideration of this § 101 issue to the Examiner. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 5 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 R5. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sadamoto, Mayer, and Park. Final Act. 20. R6. Claims 22, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Park and Rao. Final Act. 21. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 13—21) and our analysis of the dispositive limitations in the claims: (1) We decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R1 of claims 1, 3—6, 11—13, and 18 on the basis of representative claim 1; (2) We decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R1 of separately argued dependent claim 19, infra', (3) We decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R4 of claims 14—17, 20, and 24 on the basis of representative claim 14; (4) We decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R6 of claims 22 and 25 on the basis of representative claim 22; and (5) We decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R6 of separately argued dependent claim 23, infra. Remaining claims 2, 7—10, and 21, in Rejections R2, R3, and R5, not argued separately or with specificity, stand or fall with the respective independent claim from which they depend.4 4 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of 6 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we considered all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1—25 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 14, 19, 22, and 23 for emphasis as follows. 1. $ 103 Rejection R1 of Claims E 3—6, 11—13, and 18 Issue 1 Appellants argue (App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 2 4) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Sadamoto and Mayer is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior-art combination teaches or suggests an information-processing system having a "processing system configured to," inter alia, (LI) "independently register, in the storage device, identification information of another user, through execution of the first program, the first program causing the information processing system to dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 7 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 obtain information posted by the users included in the list," and (L2) "independently register, in the storage device, identification information of another user, through execution of the second program, the second program causing the information processing system to manage the list," as recited in claim 1? Analysis The Examiner relied upon Sadamoto as teaching or suggesting a processing system configured to execute a first and second program (Ans. 10 (citing Sadamoto 192 and Fig. 1)), and relied upon Mayer as teaching or suggesting independent registration of another user's identification through registration of the first program. Final Act. 10. Furthermore, the Examiner finds Mayer teaches or suggests independent registration of "identification information of another user, through execution of the second program, the second program causing the information processing system to manage the list." Final Act. 11 (citing Mayer H 14, 20). Appellants generally contend the Examiner erred in relying upon Mayer as teaching or suggesting the contested limitations El and F2 of claim 1. App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants argue "Mayer does not describe a first program that causes the system to obtain information posted by users included in a list, nor a second program that causes the system to manage the list" {Id. at 14) and further allege Mayer's event service 135, relied upon by the Examiner as teaching or suggesting limitation LI, merely obtains contact information and does not necessarily obtain information posted by a user. Id. at 14—15 (emphasis added). Appellants also urge, "even assuming . . . [arguendo] the contact list manager 140 causes the 8 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 system to manage the list, the manager 140 does not independently register identification information." Id. at 15. Appellants further state, without supporting analysis, that Mayer "fails to disclose or suggest" limitation L2. Id. This is the extent of Appellants' analysis that the Examiner erred. In the Reply Brief, and for the first time in this Appeal, Appellants allege "one of ordinary skill would readily appreciate that extraction of contact information is not analogous to registering contact information. That is, one of ordinary skill would understand that a program extracting contact information is not analogous to a program registering identification information of users." Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants further argue, "[a]t best, Mayer describes one service that extracts the contact information and another that manages the contact information. Mayer does not describe two separate programs that independently register contact information through their execution." Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). We disagree with Appellants' arguments because they are not responsive to the Examiner's specific factual findings and legal conclusions. Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of error on the part of the Examiner because Appellants are responding to the rejection by attacking the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior-art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We emphasize the rejections in this Appeal are for unpatentability under § 103 in which the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior-art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of 9 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants have not challenged the combinability of the teachings of Sadamoto and Mayer. We also disagree with Appellants contentions for an additional reason. Specifically, based upon our review of the record before us, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments supported with specific factual evidence of sufficient character and weight to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner's findings of facts and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.5 Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7—8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).6 See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior-art."); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior-art."). Arguments not made are therefore waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 5 See Final Act. 9-11, and see Ans. 3—5. We incorporate by reference the findings and legal conclusions contained therein in our Decision. 6 Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/ fd09004693.pdf. 10 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior-art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations LI and L2 of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 3—6, 11—13, and 18 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 2. $103 Rejection R1 of Dependent Claim 19 Issue 2 Appellants argue (App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 10) the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Sadamoto and Mayer is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior-art combination teaches or suggests the information-processing system of claim 18, "wherein the storage device of the information-processing system stores at least the first and second programs, and the first and second programs are configured to access the list stored in the storage device and register information of users," as recited in claim 19? Analysis Appellants argue "Mayer does not describe first and second programs that can access the stored list and then register information of users." App. Br. 21. The Examiner finds paragraph 19 of Mayer teaches "both event service 135 and any one of applications 105, 110, or 115 have associated 11 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 contact information which were ultimately added at one point with user information." Ans. 9 (citing Mayer 119). The Examiner also cites paragraph 21 of Mayer in buttressing the rejection of claim 19.7 In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend: Mayer describes a dedicated service that monitors applications and extracts contact information. Mayer does not teach first and second programs that can each access the list and register information of users. As such, Mayer fails to disclose or suggest that "the storage device of the information-processing system stores at least the first and second programs, and the first and second programs are configured to access the list stored in the storage device and register information of users," as required by dependent claim 19. Reply Br. 10. We disagree with Appellants because, similar to Rejection R1 of claim 1, Appellants merely recite the claim language and assert the cited prior-art combination does not teach or suggest the contested limitations. Attorney argument does not replace evidence on the record. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior-art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 19, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. 7 With respect to associated contact information ultimately being added with user information, the Examiner again cites Mayer, in pertinent part: "The collected contact information may include, in part or in full, a name, a post office address, a callable address such as an email address, phone number, IM identification, a web site URL and other identifying contact information." Ans. 9 (quoting Mayer 121) (emphasis in original). 12 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 19. 3. $103 Rejection R4 of Claims 14—17, 20, and 24 Issue 3 Appellants argue (App. Br. 15—17; Reply Br. 5—6) the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Sadamoto and Becker is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior-art combination teaches or suggests "[a]n information-processing system capable of executing a first program and a second program," that includes "a storage device configured to store, for each of the programs, a list for registering identification information of other users, wherein, when the list for the first program has been updated, the list for the second program is updated to a same content," as recited in claim 14 (emphasis added)? Analysis Appellants contend: Becker does not update contact lists in one application, to a same content, when it is updated in another application. At best, Becker updates a root table in which each application can access the root table (and add information to append to via separate tables/instances). Becker does not update the list for one program and then update the list for another program to a same content. App. Br. 16. Further in this regard, Appellants allege "Becker only describes sharing one list and thus does not describe two (or more) 13 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 applications having a separate list that is separately updated when another list is updated/modified." Id. (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner's finding that Becker's disclosure of a shared list between two applications teaches or suggests the contested limitation of claim 14. Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner because Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 14, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,8 does not require that the list for the second program be separate from the list for the first program, i.e., the claim does not preclude use of a common list.9 8 "In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations. . . . [Limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 9 Claim 14 also recites "a storage device configured to store, for each of the programs, a list. . . ." We find this recitation of intended use also does not preclude use of a common list, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require separate lists. "An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates." Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although "[s]uch statements often . . . appear in 14 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior-art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 14, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 14, and grouped claims 15—17, 20, and 24 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 4. $103 Rejection R6 of Claims 22 and 25 Issue 4 Appellants argue (App. Br. 17—19; Reply Br. 6—8) the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Park and Rao is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior-art combination teaches or suggests "[a]n information-processing system" that includes a processing system configured to, inter alia, "register identification information of a first user in the friends list through execution of at least the portal software and the system software," as recited in claim 22? Analysis Appellants state "Rao discloses a mobile web system that provides access to a mobile service addressing communication amongst a group of friends" (App. Br. 17), and "describes separate devices that can update their respective friends lists." Id. at 18. However, Appellants contend "Rao does the claim's preamble . . . ," In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id. 15 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 not teach a system having both system software and portal software where either software can register identification information of a user in a friends list.... At best, Rao indicates that registration can be accomplished by a user using his/her mobile phone; not via execution of the portal software and system software." Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, "Rao only describes a user being able to use a mobile phone to select friends to add to a friends list. Nothing in Rao teaches or suggests a device having both portal and system software where both are configured to register information of a user, let alone allow only the portal software to register favorites." Reply Br. 8. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Rao teaches or suggests the contested limitation of claim 22. Final Act. 22. Specifically, as cited by the Examiner, we point to Rao's disclosure (a) "a user of a client computer 105 can register into the friends list database 161 of a portal server 161, employing one or more web pages provided by the portal server 161" (Rao 142); (b) "[a] user can change a friends list from the user's mobile phone 121 or the client computer 105, and the changes/modifications are noted and made available for access from the portal server 161 or the distribution server 141" (Rao 143); and (c) "[t]he user of the mobile phone 121 can register using the client 123 on the mobile phone and create his own friends list/group, such as by searching/selecting for his/her friends from data available in the friends list database 151." Rao 147. We find at least these portions of Rao, relied upon by the Examiner (see Final Act. 22; Ans. 7), teach or suggest the contested limitation of claim 22. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior-art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 22, nor do 16 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness . Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 22, and grouped claim 25, which falls therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 5. $103 Rejection R6 of Claim 23 Issue 5 Appellants argue (App. Br. 23—24; Reply Br. 8—10) the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Park and Rao is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior-art combination teaches or suggests the information-processing system of claim 22, "wherein the friends list is modifiable by both the portal software and the system software, whereas the favorites list is only modifiable by the portal software," as recited in claim 23? Analysis Appellants contend "Park does not describe having a friends list modifiable by both portal and system software, or a friends list only modifiable by portal software . . . [and does not] describe two separate software systems (e.g., portal software and system software) that can modify one or both of a friends list and favorites list." App. Br. 20. In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, "[t]he cited limitation of claim 23 merely requires that both the portal and system software modify the friends list and that the favorites list is only modifiable by portal 17 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 software." Ans. 8. The Examiner cites to Park paragraphs 27 and 28 as teaching or suggesting the contested limitation. For example: The consumer portal server 190 can store private data of user 145, including, for example, contacts, contact groups, favorite lists of contacts, blacklists of contacts, calendar, personalized program guides, and so on. A favorite list, for example, can be configured to automatically include a selected number of contacts (e.g., a top three, top five, or top ten list) with whom the user 145 frequently talks. In other embodiments, a favorite list can include or can consist of a number of favorite contacts personally selected by the user 145. In an exemplary embodiment, when the user 145 launches the program guide application 125 within the STB 120, the program guide application 125 is able to retrieve the favorite list from consumer portal server 190. Park 127 (emphasis added). We find this disclosure teaches or at least suggests the contested limitation because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and on this record, we find it is not unreasonable to conclude that the favorites list, stored on consumer portal server 190, is "only modifiable by portal software," as claimed. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior-art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 23, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 23. 18 Appeal 2017-007648 Application 13/771,651 6. Rejections R2, R3, and R5 of Claims 2, 7—10, and 21 In view of the lack of any arguments directed to obviousness Rejections R2, R3, and R5 of claims 2, 7—10, and 21 under § 103, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims. Arguments not made are waived. REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—10) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections R1 through R6 of claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior-art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—25. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation