Appeal No. 2001-0529 Page 8
Application No. 08/846,600
C.F.R. §1.192(c)(7) (2001)). "Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is
not an argument as to why the claims are separately patentable." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(c)(7) (2002). "If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free to
select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection
as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection
based solely on the selected representative claim." McDaniel, 293 F.3d at 1383, 63
USPQ2d at 1465.
Here, the appellants fail to satisfy the second requirement. Although they point
out differences in what claims 3-9 and 22 cover, (Appeal Br. at 7-9, 14, and 15), this is
not an argument why the claims are separately patentable. Therefore, claims 3-9 and
22 stand or fall with representative claim 1.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellants in toto, we address the point of contention therebetween.
The examiner finds that Young "also calculates the initial values of each accessed [sic]
addresses or coordinates (see Young: col 3, 5-67, col 6, 20-59)." (Examiner's Answer
at 6.) The appellants argue, "Sfarti et al. does not disclose a texel address generator to
receive a plurality of spans and to produce, therefrom, a set of texel addresses for a
particular point of one of the plurality of spans." (Appeal Br. at 12.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007