Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 9
Application No. 09/477,419
and (b) identifying which individual claim or claims within the group are separately
patentable and the reasons why the examiner's rejection should not be sustained." In
re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 37
C.F.R. §1.192(c)(7) (2001)). "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." Id., 63 USPQ2d at 1465.
Here, the appellants stipulate, "[c]laims 14, 17, 18-22 and 25-29 stand or fall
together. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 5.) We select claim 14 from the group as representative of
the claims therein.
With this representation in mind, we address the point of contention between the
examiner and the appellants. The examiner finds, "Green teaches providing a plurality
of windows which function as a container for the data of a plurality of different tasks
(fig. 4)." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) He further finds, "Williams teaches displaying an
active view port or window of data for an active one of the tasks (fig. 1 e, #14) and
displaying minimized representation for the window of each inactive task or
operation (#16). The icon list contains a minimized version of each inactive task." (Id.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007