Appeal No. 2005-1579 Page 4
Application No. 09/963,625
being representative of claims 1 and 5 and will decide this
appeal as to the examiner’s ground of rejection thereof based on
representative claim 1. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8), as
in effect at the time of filing of appellant’s brief, and In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.
2002) ("[i]f 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").
Concerning representative claim 1 and the examiner’s first
stated obviousness rejection over Korte and Gillich, appellants
essentially acknowledge (brief, pages 7-9) that Korte discloses a
method of forming an anodized coating on a surface of an article
made of an aluminum alloy that can include magnesium followed by
coloring the anodized coating, wherein the coating is formed
using an acid anodizing step performed at temperature and current
density conditions that overlap or are inclusive of those claimed
herein.1 See, e.g., pages 7-9 of the brief. In this regard, it
1 See the conversion factor for current density as
acknowledged by appellants at page 7 of the brief and as
calculated at page 8 of the brief for Korte, which calculation
is not disputed by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007