Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
sources having different frequencies (Brief, page 2). Appellants
state that claims 29-38 and 44 should be considered as one group
and claims 39-40, 42-43 and 45 should be considered as a second
group (Brief, page 4). Appellants do provide reasonably specific,
substantive arguments for the separate patentability of each group
(e.g., Brief, page 8). Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997), we select one claim from each group
(i.e., claims 29 and 39) and decide the grounds of rejection in
this appeal on the basis of these claims alone, with the other
claims in each group standing or falling together.1 A copy of
illustrative claim 29 is attached as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
support for the rejections on appeal:
Kuyel 4,282,267 Aug. 04, 1981
Yamazaki 4,461,783 Jul. 24, 1984
Ishihara et al. (Ishihara) 4,818,563 Apr. 04, 1989
Lane et al. (Lane) 4,894,352 Jan. 16, 1990
Chebi et al. (Chebi) 5,279,865 Jan. 18, 1994
Homma 5,288,518 Feb. 22, 1994
Nguyen et al. (Nguyen) 5,356,722 Oct. 18, 1994
Nishiyama et al. (Nishiyama) 5,429,995 Jul. 04, 1995
Musaka et al. (Musaka) 5,571,571 Nov. 05, 1996
1Of course, for the ground of rejection of claim 31 alone
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishiyama, we must consider claim
31. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007