Appeal No. 2000-2282
Application 08/713,046
At the outset, we note that Appellants have provided a
statement, on page 5, lines 9 and 10, that claims 25 and 26 and
claims 28-31 stand or fall together. Claim 27 stands or falls
together separately from the first group of claims. 37 CFR
§1.192 (c)(7)(July 1, 1999), which was controlling at the time of
Appellants’ 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.
We will, thereby, consider claims 25, 26 and 28-31 as
standing or falling together as a group, and we will treat claim
25 as a representative claim of that group. Further, we will
consider claim 27 as its own group.
With regards to claim 25, Appellants argue that “attaching
Douglas’ monitor to Bosack’s system would not provide the
invention of Claim 25 because this would not provide two separate
steps (b) and (c).” See Appeal Brief page 6, lines 2-4.
Specifically, Appellants argue that “Bosack’s broadcast cannot be
interpreted to include step (c) of claim 25. At best, Bosack’s
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007