Appeal No. 2004-2238
Application No. 09/878,743
We initially note that Appellants assert “that there are at least three
separately patentable groups of claims. Group 1 consists of claim 21.
Group 2 consists of claims 22 and 23. Group 3 consists of claim 35.
Appellants submit that “each of these groups of claims are separately
patentable from each of the other of the groups of claims for reasons
which will be developed below in the argument.” (Brief, p. 3). However,
Appellants have failed to provide arguments directed to the separate
groups. Consequently, the rejected claims will stand or fall together.
The Examiner rejected claims 21-23 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Edwards, Elder and
Nishibori. We select claim 21 as representative of the rejected claims.3
Appellants’ invention relates to one-piece, unitary lid for a casket.
The unitary casket lid comprises a crown, a pie, a header and side rim
members. Claim 21, which is representative of the claimed invention,
appears below:
3 The Examiner relied upon the Nishibori reference for teaching elements that do not
appear in claim 21. Thus, in our discussion of the rejection we will not discuss the
teachings of this reference.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007