Appeal No. 2004-0479
Application No. 09/780,864
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.
We will, thereby, consider Appellants' claims 18 and 21-25
as standing or falling together and we will treat claim 18 as
a representative claim of that group. "If the brief fails to
meet either requirement, 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." In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also
In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In are Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007