Appeal No. 95-4356
Application 08/133,821
We agree with appellants that the artisan having
considered the specification of this application would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
claim 16. The objected to step appears to reasonably recite
that an assigned object is determined based on an icon
selected by the user. Therefore, the rejection of claim 16
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 16-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants have indicated that for purposes
of this appeal the claims will stand or fall together in four
groups, each headed by one of the four independent claims.
Consistent with this indication appellants have made no
separate arguments with respect to any of the claims within
each group. Accordingly, all the claims within each group
will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly,
we will only consider the rejections against independent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007