Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Hartman et al 11166540 - (D) FRAHM 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. TRAN, KHANH C
Appellants argue claims 4, 10, and 14 in the conclusion of the Appeal Brief (Br. 14); and Appellants have not clearly stated in the Appeal Brief that some of the finally rejected claims (e.g., claims 4, 10, and 14) are not being pursued in the appeal. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (holding that when appellants are silent in the notice of appeal as to the specific claims being appealed, and then clearly state in the appeal brief that some of the finally rejected claims are not being pursued in the appeal, appellants should cancel those claims not pursued). As such, the facts of the instant case are not congruent with the facts of Ex parte Ghuman, and we consider Appellants to appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 20-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on October 22, 2013.
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Tankov et al 10858657 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP ZHEN, LI B
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Subramanian et al 11749671 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. WILSON, CANDICE D C