Appeal No. 2004-0539
Application No. 09/921,254
In light of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will be sustained.
Notwithstanding appellants' grouping of claims set forth on page
4 of the brief, we note that appellants have failed to separately
argue the patentability of claims 6 through 11 and 17 through 21
apart from claims 1 through 5 and 12 through 16 in any meaningful
manner, essentially urging in both instances that it would not
have been obvious to modify the Brazier burner by adding to it a
fuel lance as disclosed by Bury. Thus, we have concluded that
claims 2 through 21 will fall with representative independent
claim 1. See, In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140
(CCPA 1978).
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007