Appeal No. 2003-0628
Application No. 09/860,493 Page 3
the applied prior art. Accordingly we will sustain the
examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in
the final rejection and examiner's answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants (brief, page 8) state that each claim “stands or
falls together with the others.” Also, appellants do not furnish
separate arguments for each claim on appeal. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(2002) and In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379,
1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“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”). Consequently, we select claim 13, as the
representative claim, on which we decide this appeal as to the
examiner’s rejection.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s determination that
Bonito teaches subject matter substantially embraced by
representative claim 13 but for the claimed display monitor
location. In this regard, Bonito discloses a golf cart body, a
roof with an underside mounted thereon, and a display monitor as
part of a mobile computer for displaying golf course information,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007