Appeal No. 2004-0199
Application No. 09/385,489
We will, thereby, consider the Appellants' claims 33 through
36 as standing or falling together and we will treat claim 33 as
a representative claim of that group. See also In re McDaniel,
293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("If
the brief fails to meet 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, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants' argue that claim 33 includes capturing the terms
of the contract and storing the terms of the contract elements.
Appellants submit that at least for the reasons relating to
claims 1 and 23, the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 33
should be reversed. See page 26 of Appellants' brief.
Appellants argue for claims 1 and 23 that Jones does not
expressly of implicitly mention capturing and/or storing the
terms of the contract of the trade promotion agreed upon between
the manufacturer and the retailer. See pages 14 and 18-19 of
Appellants' brief.
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007