Appeal No. 2003-1038
Application No. 09/262,628
In addition, claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 23 on
appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Hammar and Pustka. (Id. at pages
7-10.)4
We affirm the rejection under the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, but reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).5
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1: Lack of Written Description
In reply to the Office action mailed Apr. 18, 2001 (paper
9), the appellants amended the claims by replacing the term
“fluoropolymer” with “fluoroplastic.” (Amendment filed Jul. 30,
4 The examiner states that all other rejections set forth
in the final Office action have been withdrawn. (Answer, p. 3,
ll. 1-4.)
5 The appellants submit that the claims should be grouped
as follows: (I) claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, and 12-16; and (II) claims
17-23. Concerning the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, the
appellants have not advanced any argument in support of the
separate patentability of claims 17-23. Accordingly, for the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, we confine our discussion
to claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995); In re McDaniel, 293
F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the
brief fails to meet either requirement [as provided under 37 CFR
? 1.192(c)(7)], 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.”).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007