Appeal No. 2003-2136 Page 4
Application No. 09/562,952
and U.S. Patent No. 5,320,569 ("Oshima '569"). Claim 16 stands rejected under
§ 103(a) as obvious over Oshima '198; Osamura; Oshima '569; and U.S. Patent
No. 5,395,273 ("Matsutani").
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejection of the claims in the following order:
• claims 7-15 and 17
• claim 16.
A. CLAIMS 7-15 AND 17
"[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's brief to the Board
must contain a clear statement for each rejection: (a) asserting that the patentability of
claims within the group of claims subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together,
and (b) identifying which individual claim or claims within the group are separately
patentable and the reasons why the examiner's rejection should not be sustained." In
re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 37
C.F.R. §1.192(c)(7) (2001)). "Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is
not an argument as to why the claims are separately patentable." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(c)(7) (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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007