Appeal No. 1999-0402
Application No. 08/567,385
members 23, 26, and 28 of Sere that the partition walls 23 do
not overlie comprise regions of the bottom wall that are free
of vertically extending ribbing.
In light of our above reading of claim 8 on Sere, and the
arguments presented by appellants against the anticipation
rejection thereof based on Sere, we will sustain the standing
§ 102 rejection of claim 8. We also will sustain the standing
§ 102 rejection of claims 18, 22, 23, 25 and 28 based on Sere
in that appellants have not argued the rejection of claims 18,
22, 23, 25 and 28 apart from claim 8, and have, in effect,
grouped the claims rejected under § 102 together as a single
group
(see main brief, page 3). See, for example, In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA
1979).
The § 103 rejection of claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 8 and adds that the
vertically extending ribs extend upwardly from the bottom of 1
1We consider the term “said base” in line 2 of claim 14 as
referring to the “bottom wall” of the container set forth in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007