Appeal No. 2002-0880
Application No. 09/183,214
We will, thereby, consider the Appellants’ claims 8 through 11 as standing or falling
together and we will treat claim 8 as the representative claim of that group and claims
16 and 17 as standing or falling together and we will treat claim 16 as the
representative claim of that group. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63
USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("If the brief fails to meet either requirement [of 37
CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)], 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.").
For claims 8 through 11, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Winkler and Bald does not arrive at Appellants’ invention of claim 8. In
particular, Appellants argue that the proposed combination “does not teach a processor
coupled to . . . the display . . . the processor operable to cause the display to display the
plurality of product model identifiers for selection by the operator” as recited in
Appellants’ claim 8. See pages 20 through 22 of the brief.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, the Examiner bears the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Plasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007