Appeal No. 2001-0611
Application No. 08/742,733
proper antecedent basis. Appellants “concur in the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, and will offer an
appropriate amendment should the Board reverse any of the
Examiner’s rejections under § 103(a) as to these claims” (main
brief, page 5). In that appellants have chosen not to present
any argument directed to the merits of this rejection, but have
simply offered to submit “an appropriate amendment” to remedy the
claim deficiency, the rejection of claims 11-23, 43 and 44 on
this ground is summarily affirmed.
The § 103 rejection of claims 11-17, 43 and 44 as being
unpatentable over Moumene in view of Bokros
Appellants expressly state (main brief, page 5) that the
claims grouped under each rejection stand or fall together.
Therefore, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have
selected independent claim 11 as the representative claim of this
group, with claims 12-17, 43 and 44 standing or falling
therewith.
Moumene pertains to a composite “beam” (i.e, an orthopedic
implant device) adapted for implantation within a bone that is
able to support bending and torsional loading forces applied
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007