Appeal No. 94-3053
Application 07/832,661
together unless a statement is included
that the rejected claims do not stand or
fall together, and in the appropriate part
or parts of the argument under subparagraph
(c)(6) of this section appellant presents
reasons as to why appellant considers the
rejected claims to be separately
patentable.
As per 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), which was also controlling at the
time of Appellants’ filing the brief, we will, thereby,
consider the claims in each above group to stand or fall
together as a group, with the broadest claim deemed to be the
representative claim for that group.
In addition, Appellants separately argue claims 3,
9, 10, 22, 27, 28, 31 and 61. Therefore, we treated each of
these claims separately.
Group (1) - representative claim 55
Claim 55 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Hester. It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim
under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007