Appeal No. 2002-2164
Application No. 09/067,599
Claims 1-14 have been canceled. Claims 21-32, 34, and 35 have been allowed,
subsequent to the Final Rejection.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 13) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 18) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
17) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
Section 102 rejection of claims 15, 16, 19, 20, 33, and 36 over Dosiere
Appellants present separate arguments in support of the subject matter common
to claims 16 and 20. Appellants also present separate arguments in support of claim
36, although in a section of the Brief that is ostensibly in response to a Section 103
rejection. Accordingly, we select claims 15, 16, and 36 as representative. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7). See also In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the brief fails to meet either requirement [of 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.”).
Dosiere relates to a frame synchronisation method that includes detection of an
n-bit pattern in a bitstream. Appellants submit that the reference does not refer to a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007