Appeal No. 2003-0574
Application No. 09/568,616
Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780, 227 USPQ 773, 777-78
(Fed. Cir. 1985); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Murray does not
disclose his invention is constructed for containment of flywheels. The Examiner has
therefore not adequately disclosed why it is believed that a sheet material of Murray is the
same as the claimed containment for a flywheel of claims 11, 13 and 21. Consequently,
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
III. The Rejection under Section 103
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 15-17, 19-21 and 24-26 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miller.
Appellant states that the claims on appeal should not stand or fall together. (Brief,
p. 6). We will consider the claims separately only to the extent that separate arguments
are of record in this appeal. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d
1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“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 representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that
rejection based solely on the selected representative claim.”).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007