Appeal No. 2006-0743 4
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,690
(2) Claims 9, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Gager, Federspiel, Marrazzo and Simon.4
Grouping of claims
There are two grounds of rejection in this appeal. As to the first ground of rejection, the
appellant argues the patentability of claims 1-4, 7, 10-20, 22 and 23 as a group and argues the
patentability of claim 8 separately. As to the second ground of rejection, the appellant argues the
patentability of the claims as a group, focusing on the capacitance sensing pad. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, the patentability of claims 2-4, 7, 10-20, 22 and 23 stands or falls with
the patentability of claim 1, the patentability of claim 8 stands alone and the patentability of
claims 21 and 24 stands or falls with the patentability of claim 9. See 69 Fed. Reg. 50,006
(Aug. 12, 2004) (codified at 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
Discussion
4 In the final Office action, the examiner grouped the rejection of claim 9 with the
rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-20, 22 and 23. See Paper 15 at 2. However, in the Answer, the
examiner indicated that “[t]he rejection of claim 9 is intended to be grouped with the rejection of
claims 21 and 24.” Answer at 12. Claims 9, 21 and 24 are directed to a capacitance sensing pad,
and Simon discloses a capacitance sensor. Therefore, it is apparent that the rejection of claim 9
should have been grouped with the rejection of claims 21 and 24 in the final Office action. The
appellant has failed to argue otherwise in a reply brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007