Ex Parte KIM - Page 7



          Appeal No. 2002-1006                                                        
          Application 09/132,351                                                      

                    For each ground of rejection which [A]ppellant contests           
               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 paragraph (c)(8) of this section,                   
               [A]ppellant explains why the claims of the group are                   
               believed to be separately patentable.  Merely pointing out             
               differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as             
               to why the claims are separately patentable.                           
          Furthermore, note that claims 1 and 9 are rejected under                    
          35 U.S.C. § 102.  We will, thereby, consider the Appellant’s                
          claims 1 and 9 as standing or falling together and we will treat            
          claim 1 as a representative claim of that group.  See also 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.”)                                                     
               Appellant argues in the brief and the reply brief that                 
          Sanders fails to teach a “group identifier” that is a “separately           
          defined field” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1.  Appellant                
          argues that Sanders teaches directing messages to a single pre-             

                                          7                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007