Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
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.
In addressing claim 1, as a representative claim of the
group of claims 1 through 6 and 10 through 17 for the reasons set
forth supra, we see that Appellant states that “the rejected
claims are not obvious in view of the Berry document, since Berry
does not disclose or suggest each and every element of those
claims.” See page 5, lines 16-17 of the Brief. Appellant then
argues, with regards to Berry, that,
[i]f both the source and destination are within the
same workplace, the result is to move the source
object. However, if the source and destination are not
within the same workplace, the result is a copy
operation. (Page 450, right column, first three full
paragraphs.) The workplace is described on page 441,
left column, as the area within the computer screen. A
removable storage device such as a floppy disk is
considered to be outside of the workplace. See page 6,
lines 14-19 of the Brief.
Appellant further argues that “the Berry article explicitly
teaches away from the claimed invention. For example, Berry, in
pages 449-450, expressly discloses a drag and drop technique
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007