Appeal No. 2004-1259
Application No. 09/832,355
Claims 1-5, 9, 17, 18, 32-34, 41 and 43-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a), as obvious over Yoon in view of either or both of Gill and Rockwell.
We reverse the enablement and written description rejections and affirm the prior
art rejections.
Claim Grouping
The appellants argue that the claims do not stand or fall together. Brief, pages
3-4. However, with respect to the prior art rejections, appellants have not separately
argued the patentability of any individual claims. Brief, pages 9-10. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) (1997) (Claims stand or fall together "unless a statement is included that
claims the claims of the group do not stand or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable." (Emphasis added.)). Claims not separately
argued stand or fall with those that are separately argued. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991, 217 USPQ 1,3, (Fed. Cir. 1983). We decide this appeal on the basis of claim
1 with respect to the prior art rejections. In Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Rejections for lack of enablement and written description
are reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007