Appeal 2006-0016
Application 10/347,536
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(citing 37 C.F.R. §1.192(c)(7)(2001)). "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 that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely
on the selected representative claim." Id., Id.
Here, the Appellants stipulate, "For the purposes of this appeal,
claims 37-48 and 60-65 stand or fall together as one group." (Br. 4.) We
select claim 37 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the group.
With the aforementioned representation in mind, rather than reiterate
the positions of the parties in toto, we focus on the issue therebetween. The
Examiner finds, "[T]here does not appear to be support in the original
disclosure for the claim limitation regarding the processor blocking colliding
transactions." (Answer 3.) He further finds that "it is abundantly clear that
the node controller is the element that directly performs the blocking not the
processor." (Id. 11.) The Appellants allege, "Applicants' specification
provides a written description that describes in detail the features of the
claims." (Br. 5.) Therefore, the issue is whether the Appellants' original
disclosure reasonably conveys to the artisan that they had possession of a
processor that, after requesting a Read transaction, blocks transactions that
collide with its transaction.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013