Appeal No. 2004-1250
Application No. 09/760,400 Page 3
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant’s arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellant has not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
§ 102 Rejection
Appellant maintains that “[e]ach claim forms a separate
group of claims [such] that each [claim] stand[s] or fall[s]
independent of the others” (brief, page 8). However, appellant’s
brief does not include separate arguments for the patentability
of each appealed claim subject to this rejection 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007