Appeal No. 2003-0583
Application No. 09/270,688
custom-made insole." We agree that Yanagida teaches scanning the
front side of a person to make an engraving of the person on a
model. However, we fail to find a teaching of the above
limitations recited in Appellants' claim 13. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 4 and 6-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sundman and Garuet-Lempirou.
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page 4 of
the brief that claims 1, 4, and 6-12 stand or fall together and
claims 13-29 stand or fall together. However, in the brief and
reply brief, we note that Appellants argue independent claims 1
and 13 together and independent claim 17 separately. No other
claims are argued. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 2001) as
amended at 62 Fed. Reg. 53196 (October 10, 1997), which was
controlling at the time of Appellants filing the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which [A]ppellants contest
and which applies to a group of two or more claims, the
Board shall select a single claims 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, Appellants explains why the
claims of the group are believed to be separately
patentable. Merely pointing out differences in what
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007