Appeal No. 2003-0509 Page 8
Application No. 08/657,510
or suggestion of simultaneously displaying a graphical representation of an application
under development, a hierarchy of selectable classes, and code for one of the
selectable classes, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 1; of claims 2-5, which depend therefrom; of
claim 7; and of claims 8 and 10-14, which depend therefrom.
B. CLAIMS 15-19
"[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
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007