Appeal No. 2003-1025
Application No. 09/224,918
We will, thereby, consider Appellants' claims as standing or
falling together in the five groups noted above, and we will
treat:
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I;
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group II;
Claim 37 as a representative claim of Group III;
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group IV; and
Claim 4 as a representative claim of Group V.
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, 1368,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-15, 17-
25, and 28-49 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-15, 17-25, and 28-49 fail to comply
with the written description requirement as the claims contain
subject matter which was not described in the specification in
such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant
art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed,
had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we affirm.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007