Appeal No. 2001-0390
Application 08/932,238
Even though the examiner has made separate rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103, appellants have,
nevertheless, indicated that the claims should stand or fall
together in three groups headed respectively by one of the
independent claims. Specifically, appellants have indicated that
claims 1-6 and 44-47 stand or fall together as a first group,
claims 43 and 48-51 stand or fall together as a second group, and
claim 52 stands or falls separately from the other claims [brief,
page 7]. Since appellants have not argued each of the rejections
independently, we will consider the rejections against claims 1,
43 and 52 as representative of all the claims on appeal. Note In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Since claims 1, 43 and 52 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) only, we will only consider the propriety of the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We consider first the rejection of representative,
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by the admitted prior art. Anticipation is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007