Appeal No. 2002-0962
Application No. 09/017,959
Claims 17-28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Stevens.2
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 25 and 27) and to the final rejection and examiner’s answer
(Paper Nos. 20 and 26) for the respective positions of appellant
and the examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
Discussion
At the outset, appellant’s statement that claims 17-20 stand
or fall together and that claims 21-28 stand or fall together is
not reflective of the arguments made by appellant in the main and
reply briefs regarding the merits of the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of the appealed claims. Rather, appellant has argued the
examiner’s anticipation rejection without reference to any
particular claim. Thus, the appealed claims will stand or fall as
a group. See In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1021-22, 201 USPQ 658,
660 (CCPA 1979); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ
67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 1309-10, 177
USPQ 170, 172 (CCPA 1973). For purposes of this appeal, we
consider independent claim 17 as representative of appellant’s
2In the final rejection, claims 17-28 were also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, however, this rejection
has since been withdrawn. See pages 4 and 6 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007