Appeal No. 2001-0372
Application 08/928,242
does not argue claims 1 through 3, 9, 10, 12 and 17 separately
but rather argues them as a group.
37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) (July 1, 1998) as amended at 62 Fed.
Reg. 53196 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at the time
of Appellant’s 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.
Since Appellant has not made separate arguments to each claim but
argues the claims as a group, we hold that claims 1 through 3, 9,
10, 12 and 17 stand or fall together and we will select claim 1
as the representative claim for that group.
On pages 5 and 6 of the brief, Appellant argues that Endo
uses a totally different approach than claimed by Appellant for
measuring the range between the radar system and the car ahead.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007