Ex Parte Dang et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2006-0430                                                             Page 4                                     
             Application No. 09/859,425                                                                                                  



                    Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S.                                             
             Patent No. 6,421,733 ("Tso") and U.S. Patent No. 6,073,147 ("Chan").                                                        
             .                                                                                                                           
                                                   II. OPINION                                                                           
                    "When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a                                        
             group by appellant[s], the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that                                    
             are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the                                      
             ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone.  Notwithstanding any other                                    
             provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant[s] to separately argue claims which                                   
             appellant[s] has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the                                        
             Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately."  37 C.F.R.                                          
             § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Sep. 30, 2004).                                                                                         


                    Here, claims 1-21 are subject to the same ground of rejection.  Rather than                                          
             arguing the patentability of dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-20 separately, the                                    
             appellants rely on their arguments for independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, respectively.                                   
             (Appeal Br. at 15, 20, 21, 25.)  Therefore, we select each independent claim as                                             
             representative of its dependent claims.  With this representation in mind, rather than                                      
             reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the two                                      


















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007