Appeal No. 2003-0548 Page 6
Application No. 09/370,599
claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and 69-75 for the
reasons set forth above and as developed in appellants’ briefs.
Our disposition of the examiner’s § 103 rejection as applied
to claims 40 and 41 is another matter. At the outset, we note
that appellants have not identified claims 40 and 41 as being
separately argued member claims of appellants’ second claim
grouping. Consequently, we select claim 40 as the representative
claim for purposes of deciding this appeal as to the rejection of
these claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2000). See In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (“if the brief fails to meet either requirement [of the
rule], the Board is free to select a single claim from each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as
representative of all claims in that group and to decide the
appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected
representative claim”). Thus, we appropriately confine our
discussion to claim 40.
Here, the examiner (answer, pages 3, 4 and 6) has determined
that the structure called for by representative claim 40 does not
patentably distinguish over the apparatus taught by Sato.
Appellants urge that Sato does not teach that the substrate
transport chamber holding the CVD chamber of Sato possesses a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007