Appeal No. 2004-0129
Application No. 09/230,720
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates on
page 6 of the Brief that each of claims 26 through 52 is
separately patentable. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant
contests and which applies to a group of two or more
claims, the Board shall select a single claim from the
group and shall decide the appeal as to the ground of
rejection on the basis of that claim alone unless a
statement is included that the claims of the group do
not stand or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant explains
why the claims of the group are believed to be
separately patentable. Merely pointing out differences
in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why
the claims are separately patentable. (Emphasis ours)
Although appellant provides separate arguments for claims 26, 51,
and 52, for claims 27 through 50 appellant merely points out the
differences in what the claims cover by repeating the limitations
therein. Arguments that could have been made but that were not
included in the brief are waived. Accordingly, we will treat the
claims as falling into three groups, claims 26 through 50, claim
51, and claim 52, with claims 26, 51, and 52 as representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007