Appeal No. 2002-1224
Application No. 09/266,927
Hagen 3,817,178 Jun. 18, 1974
Edwards et al. (Edwards) 4,836,381 Jun. 6, 1989
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15-20, 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tollin.
Claims 1-6, 13, 15-20 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Edwards.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sewell.
Finally, claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-20, 24, 26 and 27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hagen.
On page 7 of the brief at the section entitled “GROUPING OF
CLAIMS,” the appellant states that “[t]he claims do not stand or
fall together.” However, under 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(8)(2000),
the patentability consideration of individual claims which are
commonly rejected requires that the individual claims be
separately argued as well as separately grouped. Ex parte
Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). While
certain of the appealed claims have been separately argued in the
“ARGUMENTS” section of the brief at pages 7-15 thereof, many of
the claims have not been separately argued. Instead, the
appellant has simply reiterated the feature defined by the last
mentioned claims without even characterizing the feature as a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007