Appeal No. 2003-1362
Application No. 09/178,399
not stand or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant explains why the
claims of the group are believed to be separately
patentable. Merely pointing out differences in what the
claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are
separately patentable. (Emphasis ours)
Thus, we will treat the claims as a single group with claim 1 as
representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 14.
Appellant asserts (Brief, page 9) that "[o]ne of ordinary
skill in the art would not combine the references as suggested by
the Examiner." More specifically, appellant contends (Brief,
page 10) that "[t]here is absolutely no reason to combine Golecki
with any secondary reference since Golecki describes the optional
use of weighing devices." In a related argument, appellant
suggests (Reply Brief, page 2) that "if Golecki wanted to weigh
the entire furnace, he simply would have disclosed such an
embodiment." We disagree. First, if Golecki disclosed an
embodiment in which the entire furnace was weighed, Golecki would
anticipate the claimed invention. If we required such a teaching
in Golecki to combine other references therewith, there would be
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007