Appeal No. 97-2699
Application 08/112,535
as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17, 1995), which was controlling at the time of
Appellant's filing the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant contests and which applies to a group of two or
more claims, the Board shall select a single claim from the group and shall decide the appeal as
to the ground of rejection on the basis of that claim alone unless a statement is included that the
claims of the group do not stand or fall together and, in the argument under paragraph (c)(8) of
this section, appellant explains why the claims of the group are believed to be separately
patentable. Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an
argument as to why the claims are separately patentable. Emphasis added.
We will, thereby, consider Appellant's claims 28 through 30 to stand or fall together, with claim 28
being considered the representative claim
On page 24 of the brief, Appellant argues that claim 28 recites a method of starting an
ending point identification, pairing and size determination which is not taught by the art of record.
Appellant further states that "the cited art fails to suggest the combination of recited features recited in
claim 28."
The Examiner argues on page 12 referring to page 9 of the answer that Toriu teaches
an ending point identification and pairing. In particular, the Examiner argues that Toriu teaches ending
point identification by determining the x and y gradients to find the edges and then performing the
pairing step by the grouping of x and y points. The Examiner then points out that the size of the object
may be determined by an elementary calculation. We note that the rejection as set forth in the final
action relies on Moorehead for the teaching of calculating size.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007