Appeal No. 2003-2168
Application No. 09/996,010
Yoshida et al. JP 4-46840 Feb. 17, 1992
(Published JP application)
Claims 1 through 7, 9, and 11 through 15 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2003) as anticipated by JP 4-
15142. (Examiner’s answer mailed Jul. 1, 2003, paper 12, page
3; final Office action, page 3.) In a similar fashion, claims 1
through 9 and 11 through 16 on appeal stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by JP 4-2538. (Answer,
page 3; final Office action, page 3.) Additionally, claims 1
through 3, 5, 9 through 11, and 13 on appeal stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by JP 4-46840. (Answer,
page 3; final Office action, page 4.)2
We affirm all three rejections for essentially those
reasons set forth in the answer and the final Office action.3
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s determination
that each of the applied prior art references describes each and
2 The examiner states in the advisory action that the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 (2003) of appealed claims 1-
8 has been withdrawn.
3 The appellants submit that claims 9-16 should be
considered separately from claims 1-8. (Appeal brief filed Apr.
1, 2002, paper 11, p. 3.) We note, however, that the appellants
do not explain in the “ARGUMENT” section of their brief why
these two groups of claims are separately patentable. Under
these circumstances, we hold that all the claims under each
ground of rejection stand or fall together and confine our
discussion to claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003)(effective
Apr. 21, 1995).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007