Appeal No. 2004-1168
Application 09/884,518
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Hubscher. Claims 1-161 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Hibbard in view of Heger.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, Examiner’s
rejections and the arguments of Appellant and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and reverse the
rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
At the outset, we note that Appellant does not clarify whether claims 1-6 stand or
fall together. See Appellant’s statement “[n]o special grouping is required” on page 3 of
the brief. Furthermore, we note that Appellant does not separately argue the
patentability of claims 1-6. See pages 3-5 of the brief and the reply brief. 37 CFR
§ 1.192 (c)(7) (July 1, 2003) as amended at 62 Fed. Reg. 53196 (October 10, 1997),
which was controlling at the time of Appellant’s filing the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which [A]ppellant contests and which applies
to a group of two or more claims, the Board shall select a single claim
from the group and shall decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection
1 Page 3 of the answer states “[c]laims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) . . .” However, the Examiner sets
forth the rejection of claims 12-16 in the last paragraph on page 4 of the answer. Therefore, claims 1-16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007