Appeal No. 2003-0862
Application No. 09/518,032
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Murray et al. (Murray) 5,439,673 Aug. 8, 1995
Dowell et al. (Dowell) 5,587,154 Dec. 24, 1996
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Murray.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dowell.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Murray in
combination with Dowell.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1
and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,048,519.
We affirm each of the above rejections.
Claim Grouping
According to appellants, claims 1-7 and 10-12 stand or fall by themselves as a
group. Brief, page 11. In addition, claims 8 and 9 stand by themselves as a group.
We treat the claims subject to each rejection separately. In re McDaniel, 293 F3d
1379, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1466 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Individual claims in each group are
not argued separately. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of group 1,
claims 1-7 and 10-12, and claim 8 is representative of group 2, claims 8 and 9. In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007