Appeal No. 2004-0199
Application No. 09/385,489
and Examiner, for the reasons state infra, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Furthermore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17,
19-32, 37-62, 64-82 and 84-94 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Furthermore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 18, 63
and 83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 33 through 36
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page 10 of
the brief that each of independent claims are argued separate and
apart. Furthermore, we note that independent claim 33 is argued
separately but dependent claims 34 through 36 are not. See pages
26 and 27 of the brief and the reply brief. 37 CFR § 1.192
(c)(7) (July 1, 2000) as amended at 62 Fed. Reg. 53196 (October
10, 1997), which was controlling at the time of Appellants filing
the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which [A]ppellant 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.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007