Appeal No. 2002-1749
Application No. 09/395,270
(3) claims 1-4 and 6-8, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Shaw;
(4) claims 5 and 10, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shaw in view of Wyman; and
(5) claim 9, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shaw in view of Murphy.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 11) and to
the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 9 and 12)
for the respective positions of appellant and the examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
Grouping of Claims
Appellant states on page 4 of the brief that claims 1-4, 6-8
and 10 stand or fall together as a first group, that claim 5
stands or falls alone as a second group, and that claim 9 stands
or falls alone as a third group. We note that these groups do
not correspond to the claims as grouped according to the various
grounds of rejections, and that appellant has provided separate
arguments with respect to only a few of the claims. Accordingly,
for each of the above noted grounds of rejections (1) through
(5), the claims will stand or fall in accordance with the success
or failure of appellant’s arguments. See In re Hellsund, 474
F.2d 1307, 1309-10, 177 USPQ 170, 172 (CCPA 1973); In re Wood,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007