Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
polyurethane foam sheets adjacent to the top surface of each
stiffening layer (Brief, page 2). Appellant states that claims
13 to 15 are separately patentable from claims 1 to 12 (Brief,
page 4) and provides reasonably specific, substantive reasons for
the separate patentability of these claims on pages 12-13 of the
Brief. Accordingly, we select one claim from each group of
rejected claims and decide the grounds of rejection on the basis
of these claims alone, with additional consideration of claims
13-15 to the extent they have been separately argued. See In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.
2002), and 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997). A copy of illustrative
independent claim 1 is attached as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Lappala 2,999,041 Sep. 5, 1961
Wiegand 3,923,293 Dec. 2, 1975
Fracalossi et al. (Fracalossi) 4,385,131 May 24, 1983
Quinn 5,429,852 Jul. 4, 1995
Claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lappala (Answer, page 3). Claims 8-9 and 13-15
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lappala (id.). Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lappala in view of Fracalossi (Answer, page
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007