Appeal No. 2004-2059
Application No. 10/278,725
being anticipated by Boyd because these claims have not been
separately argued with any reasonable degree of specificity apart
from claim 1. See, for example, In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307,
1309-10, 177 USPQ 170, 172 (CCPA 1973); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); and In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Turning to the rejection of claims 12, 13 and 15 as being
unpatentable over Boyd in view of Hayashi, we also shall sustain
the rejection of these claims since appellant has not separately
argued the merits of these claims with any reasonable degree of
specificity.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007