Appeal No. 2003-1184
Application No. 09/737,344
§ 1.192(c)(7). See also In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the brief fails to meet either requirement [of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)],
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.”).
With respect to the rejection of claim 14, appellants rely on the “same reasons as
given above” -- i.e. the alleged lack of providing evidence in support of combining the
teachings of Numazaki and Wicks -- to show error in the rejection. Since we find
appellants’ position to be untenable, and the examiner has set forth a reasonable case
for prima facie obviousness of the subject matter as a whole of claim 14, we sustain the
rejection over Numazaki, Wicks, and Laesser.
CONCLUSION
The examiner’s rejection of claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007