Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Diehl reference fully meets the invention as set forth in
claims 2 and 4-7. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants indicate (Brief, page 3) that the claims on appeal
stand or fall together as a group. Consistent with this
indication, Appellants’ arguments are directed solely to features
which are set forth in independent claim 2. Accordingly, we will
select independent claim 2 as the representative claim for all the
claims on appeal, and claims 4-7 will stand or fall with claim 2.
Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007