Appeal No. 2003-0495 Page 4
Application No. 09/256,543
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
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." Id., 63 USPQ2d at 1465.
Here, the appellants group claims 1-7 together. (Appeal Br., § VII.) We select
claim 1 from the group as representative of the claims therein. With this representation
in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the point of contention therebetween. Observing that "[i]n column 28, lines 14-
19, a subset of five channels are evaluated in a 1.5 millisecond scan period,"
(Examiner's Answer at 8), the examiner asserts, "[t]o the user, the determination is done
substantially simultaneously as the user experiences no delay in operation." (Id.) The
appellants argue, "Ciccone teaches determining if a signal is present by examining
individual channels sequentially." (Appeal Br., § VIII.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007