Appeal No. 2001-2168
Application No. 09/083,307
claims is identified on pages 4 and 11 of the main brief as
group 2. We are therefore authorized under 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), as amended effective April 21, 1995, to
select a single claim from group 2, and to decide the
appeal of the claims in group 2 on the basis of the
patentability of that representative claim alone.
Accordingly, we will select claim 16 as being
representative of group 2, with the result that the
remaining claims in that group, namely claims 5, 6, 10-15,
17 and 23, shall stand or fall with claim 16. See also In
re Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091 and In re
Wood, 582 F.2d at 642, 199 USPQ at 140.
Claim 16 depends from claim 9 and recites that the
system “includes means for administering radiation to the
tissue.” In support of the § 103 rejection of claim 16,
the examiner states on page 5 of the answer that radiation
treatment of infected or diseased tissue is a well-known
practice in the field of appellant’s invention. The
examiner also states on page 5 of the answer that it also
is well known in the prior art to combine radiation
treatment with other methods of cancer treatment.
Appellant has not challenged these findings.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007