Appeal No. 2000-1164 Page 4
Application No. 08/899,176
rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 15 over Yamashita is another
matter since the examiner has not shown that Yamashita describes
all of the claimed steps. Accordingly, we will affirm the
examiner’s rejections involving the Eitoku reference for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer
and shall reverse the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1-6,
8, 9 and 15 over Yamashita. We add the following for emphasis.
For each of the four separate rejections advanced by the
examiner, appellants have grouped the claims together in
contesting each such rejection. See brief, pages 4 and 5.
Accordingly, the claims stand or fall together with respect to
each of the examiner’s rejections. We select claim 8 as the
representative claim on which we decide this appeal for both of
the examiner’s § 102 rejections. We select claim 13 as the
representative claim for the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
7, 13, 14, 19 and 20 and select claim 10 as the representative
claim for the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10-12 and 16-
18.
§ 102 Rejection Over Eitoku
Initially we note that anticipation by a prior art reference
does not require that reference to recognize either the inventive
concept of the claimed subject matter or the inherent properties
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007