Appeal No. 2002-1214
Application No. 09/062,046
Horvath 5,494,546 Feb. 27, 1996
Bielfeldt et al. (Bielfeldt) 5,562,028 Oct. 08, 1996
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 21, 25, 38 and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Miller; claims 26, 33 to 37 and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Miller; claims 3 to 8, 10, 11, 13 to 15, 17 and 40 to 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Miller and
Bielfeldt; claims 27 to 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Miller and either Alexander or Horvath; and claim 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. (Answer pp. 3 to 6).
At the outset, we note that Appellants state “[f]or purposes of this appeal,
claims 1 through 8, 10, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 21 and 25 through 45 stand together.
Claim 38 is the broadest claim. Claims 1, 2, 21, 25, 27 through 32 and 39 stand and
fall with claim 38. Claims 3 through 8, 10, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 26, 33 through 37
and 40 through 45 stand, but do not fall, within claims 38.” (Brief, p. 5).
Appellants have failed to provide a grouping of the claims for each ground of
rejection. There are several claims within Appellants’ groups that are subject to
different ground of rejection. Since the Appellants have not properly selected
claims for each ground of rejection, we will select a representative for each
rejection. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007