Appeal No. 2003-1967
Application No. 08/970,889
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.") See also, In re
Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Appellants' sole argument is set forth on page 31 of the
brief. There, Appellants argue that claims 17-20 are patentable
for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. See page 31
of Appellants' brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
We note that claim 17 is directed to an entirely different
invention than claim 1. In particular, Appellants' claim 17
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007