Appeal No. 2003-1395
Application No. 09/497,123
rejection on appeal and thus its separate grouping is immaterial
(Reply Brief, page 2). Contrary to the examiner’s assertions
(Answer, page 3), appellants do present reasonably specific,
substantive reasons for the separate patentability of claim 2
(e.g., Brief, page 6). Therefore we select claim 1 as
representative of the first group of claims and consider claim 2
separately to the extent of appellants’ arguments. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2000); In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63
USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The examiner relies upon the following references as support
for the rejections on appeal:
Biedermann et al. (Biedermann) 5,702,451 Dec. 30, 1997
Rabbe et al. (Rabbe) 5,776,197 Jul. 07, 1998
Claims 1, 7, 9, 14, 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Biedermann (Answer, page 4). Claims
1, 2, 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Rabbe (Answer, page 5). We affirm both of the
examiner’s rejections for reasons stated in the Answer and those
reasons set forth below. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner is affirmed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007