Appeal No. 2002-1567 Page 3
Application No. 09/197,729
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants* arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants (brief, page 2) have identified two groups of
claims with claims 1, 2, 5-12, 17 and 18 being grouped together.2
We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim on
which we shall decide this appeal with respect to the first named
grouping of claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997). We shall
select claim 13 as the representative claim and shall consider
the patentability of the second grouping of claims 13 and 14
separately only to the extent that claim grouping has been
separately argued by appellants in a manner consistent with
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(iv) (1997).
2 Claim 6 was cancelled in an amendment filed April 19, 2000
and appellants did not include dependent claim 15 in either claim
grouping. Since claim 15 depends from claim 1 and appellants did
not separately argue claim 15 or disagree with the examiner’s
suggestion (answer, page 2) that claim 15 be included in the
first claim grouping, we shall consider the patentability of
claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, 15, 17 and 18 as rising or falling
together.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007