Appeal No. 1999-2684
Application No. 08/825,400
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 19, filed Mar. 29, 1999) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants have indicated that claims 1-4 and 12 will stand or fall together at page 3
of the brief and have not provided separate argument to the patentability of claims 2-4
and 12. These claims are grouped with independent claim 1. (See 37 CFR
1.192(c)(7).) Furthermore, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
Examiner is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to
independent claims 1 and 12, therefore, we do not reach the issue of obviousness with
respect to claims 2-4.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellants argue that Degani does not
mention compensating for bent or curved circuit boards or the leveling feature of claim
1. (See brief at page 3.) We agree with appellants, but this argument is not persuasive
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007