Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
Issue 1: The Rejection over Winn, Lam, Reichert, and Baker ‘766
I begin with a review of the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-
12, 14, 15, 19-22, 25, and 29. The examiner rejected these claims
as obvious over the combination of Winn, Lam, Reichert, and Baker
‘766 (Final Rejection, pp. 2-9).
Claims 1 and 12
Initially, my focus will be on claims 1 and 12 in conformance
with appellant’s grouping of the claims and arguments in support
thereof.
The examiner has furnished evidence showing that using a
single conveyor to convey containers, such as cigarette cartons,
through opening, stamping, and closing stations was known in the
art (Winn). The examiner has further furnished evidence showing
that adjustable conveyor systems which use a pair of counter
2(...continued)
claims are to stand or fall together unless, appellant provides a
statement that the claims of the group, i.e., the claims subject
to a ground of rejection, do not stand or fall together.
Appellant’s groups do not coincide with the groups rejected. Nor
does appellant present separate arguments for each of the groups
of claims stated to stand or fall separately as further required
by the rule. I, therefore, select one claim to represent the
issues on appeal for each rejection. Only where it is clear
that, for a particular rejection, particular claims are to be
grouped separately and appellant has provided sufficiently
specific arguments to the separate group in accordance with 37
CFR §§ 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2002), do I review them separately.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007