Appeal No. 2001-0905
Application No. 09/163,412
16 and 17 together, referring to the same limitations for both
claims. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) 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.
As appellant has failed to argue any claims separately, we
will treat all of the claims as a single group with claim 16
as representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
application, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we will affirm the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 16 through 25.
Appellant states (Brief, page 9) that "[e]ven a cursory
analysis of the claims of this application vis-à-vis the
claims of the application utilized in this rejection will
show that the claims are patentably distinct." Appellant
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007