Ex Parte SUZUKI et al - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 2002-2177                                                                                  Page 3                     
                 Application No. 08/777,424                                                                                                       


                         Claims 1-10 and 12-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over                                            
                 Japanese Kokai Patent Application No. 3-274047 ("Taniguchi")1 and Adobe                                                          
                 Photoshop™ User Guide ("Adobe").  Claim 11 stands rejected under § 103(a) as                                                     
                 obvious over Taniguchi and U.S. Patent No. 5,576,836 ("Sano").                                                                   


                                                                  OPINION                                                                         
                         Our opinion addresses the rejections of the claims in the following order:                                               
                         •        claims 1-10, 17, 20, and 21                                                                                     
                         •        claims 12, 13, 18, and 23                                                                                       
                         •        claims 14, 15, 19, and 24                                                                                       
                         •        claims 16 and 25                                                                                                
                         •        claims 11 and 22.                                                                                               
                                                     A. CLAIMS 1-10, 17, 20, AND 21                                                               
                         "[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within each group                                         
                 of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's brief to the Board                                             
                 must contain a clear statement for each rejection: (a) asserting that the patentability of                                       
                 claims within the group of claims subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together,                                       
                 and (b) identifying which individual claim or claims within the group are separately                                             
                 patentable and the reasons why the examiner's rejection should not be sustained."  In                                            
                 re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 37                                               
                 C.F.R. §1.192(c)(7) (2001)).  "If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is                                       

                         1A copy of a translation is attached; we will refer to it by page number.                                                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007