Appeal No. 2003-0965
Application No. 09/030,829
We will, thereby, consider Appellants' claims as standing or
falling together in the two groups noted above, and we will
treat:
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I; and
Claim 3 as a representative claim of Group II.
"If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free
to select a single claim from each group and to decide the appeal
of that rejection based solely on the selected representative
claim." In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462,
1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Rejection of Claims 1-10 Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
We make the following new grounds of rejection using our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for
"the timing of the output of the response status being . . .
discrete . . . for each read data," does not reasonably provide
enablement for "the timing of the output of the response status
being . . . continuous . . . for each read data." The
specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to
which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007