Appeal No. 2002-0076 Page 4
Application No. 09/144,842
audio signal, and the wireless transmitter for transmitting the audio signal
over the air to the wireless receiver in the base station, the base station
converting the audio signal into a second network signal and sending the
second network signal to the network, the base station and wireless
remote microphone apparatus operating in full-duplex mode.
Claims 1-4, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,015 ("Ford"); U.S. Patent No. 4,053,717 ("Snider"); and U.S.
Patent No. 5,138,651 ("Sudo").
OPINION
"[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's brief to the Board
must contain a clear statement for each rejection: (a) asserting that the patentability of
claims within the group of claims subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together,
and (b) identifying which individual claim or claims within the group are separately
patentable and the reasons why the examiner's rejection should not be sustained." In
re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 37
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). "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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007