Appeal No. 2004-0406
Application No. 10/050,173 Page 3
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the 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 5) state that “claims 3 and 5 stand
or fall with claims 1 and 6," whereas claims 2, 4 and 7 are
identified as a separate claim grouping. However, appellants’
brief does not include separate arguments for the patentability
of appealed claims 2, 4 and 7 in compliance with 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (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, 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”). Consequently, we select claim 6, as the
representative claim, on which we decide this appeal.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), anticipation requires that the
prior art reference disclose, either expressly or under the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007