Appeal No. 96-1499
Application 08/133,013
rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
In particular, appellants now argue that we did not
address or consider the limitation of claim 1 which requires:
means for producing a desired engine speed signal
wherein said desired engine speed signal is a function
of said vehicle identification number; ...
We did not specifically address this limitation of claim
1, with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b),
because, as we stated at page 9 of our decision, all of the
claims fell with independent claim 9 in view of the lack of
any separate arguments as to the merits of any individual
claim. We recognized that appellants did group the claims
into three separate groups for purposes of the rejection under
35 U.S.C. 102(b). However, we found no separate arguments as
to the merits of any individual claim.
While appellants acknowledge that this feature of claim 1
was not specifically discussed in the section of the appeal
brief addressing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), they
now contend that they did specifically identify the limitation
as a disting-uishing feature of claim Group 1, referring to
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007