Appeal No. 2005-0067
Application No. 08/853,842
Carson WO 91/19081 Dec. 12, 1991
(WO ’081)(published
PCT application)
Claims 8, 9, 24, 25, 27, and 28 on appeal stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over DE ’283 or DE ’070
in view of JP ’916, Corn, and WO ’081. (Examiner’s answer
mailed May 3, 2004, pages 3-6.) In addition, claims 18, 26, and
29 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DE ’283 or DE ’070 in view of Corn and WO
’081. (Id. at 6.)1
We reverse the rejection of appealed claims 8, 9, 24, 25,
27, and 28 but affirm the rejection of appealed claims 18, 26,
and 29.2
1 In our discussion below, we refer to the English language
translations of DE ’283, DE ’070, and JP ’916 on which the
examiner relies.
2 The appellants submit that claims 18, 26, and 29 do not
stand or fall together. (Appeal brief at 12.) We note,
however, that these claims have been argued together in the
“Arguments” section of the brief. (Id. at 26.) Accordingly, we
hold that claims 18, 26, and 29 stand or fall together and limit
our discussion to representative claim 18. In re McDaniel, 293
F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(“If the
[appeal] brief fails to meet either requirement [as provided
under 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)], 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.”).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007