Appeal No. 2004-0331
Application No. 09/432,313
Claims 1-4, 12-14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the collective teachings of
AAPA, Rose and Haskins.2
Reference is made to appellant’s Appeal Brief (Paper No. 29)
and to the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 30) for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner regarding the merits of
this rejection.
While appellant states on page 5 of the Brief that claims 1-4
and 12-14 stand or fall as a first group and that claim 18 stands
or falls alone as a second group, we do not see that appellant has
presented a separate argument for each of the groupings with
respect to the above noted rejection maintained by the examiner on
appeal. Accordingly, we shall decide this appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1, with claims 2-4, 12-14 and 18 standing or
falling therewith. See, for example, In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Wood, 582 F.2d
638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
2The Final Rejection also included three additional prior
art rejections; however, these rejections have since been
withdrawn. See page 3 of the Answer under the heading “Issues.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007