Appeal No. 2001-0168
Application No. 09/170,790
of obviousness with respect to claims 2-4, 10, 14-16, 22, 24-26,
31, 33-35 and 41. We reverse the rejection as to these claims.
Other Issues
1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July, 1999) provides that
for each ground of rejection which appellant contest
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 ¶ (c)(8) of
this section, appellant explains why the claims of the
group are believed to be separately patentable.
Precisely how appellants view the patentability of the claims
over Moureaux is unclear from the stated grouping of the claims.
Claim 2 is grouped with claim 1. However, claim 2 is also
grouped separately from claim 1. Similarly, claims 10, 22, 31
and 41 are indicated as standing or falling with claim 2 and,
yet, are separately grouped. Since appellants appear to have
made a bonafide attempt to separately argue the patentability of
three groups of claims, we have separately considered the
patentability of each of claims 1, 2 and 10.
2. In the event that appellants elect to continue
prosecution of this application, claims 31 and 41 should be
amended to correct the preamble. In particular, the preambles
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007