Appeal No. 2004-0413
Application No. 09/752,301
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 14 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15) for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner regarding the
merits of these rejections.
Discussion
I. Claim Grouping
Appellants’ main brief states on page 3 under the heading
“Grouping of Claims” that “[t]here is only one group of claims,
that is, independent claim 1 and claims 2-8 dependent on claim 1.”
In addition, appellants have not presented arguments specifically
directed to the patentability of dependent claims 2-8 over the
applied references2, nor have appellants challenged the examiner’s
statement on page 2 of the answer that claims 1-8 stand or fall
together. It follows that in the discussion below, we shall focus
upon claim 1 and the arguments directed thereto, with claims 2-8
standing or falling with claim 1.
2Appellants’ cursory recitation on pages 8-9 of the main
brief of the content of dependent claims 2-8 does not constitute
an argument separately arguing the patentability of these claims
over the prior art.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007