Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
necessary accessories as required by the teleconference.
Therefore, we find that Larson teaches all the claimed elements
as recited in Appellant’s claim 16.
For claims 19 and 20, we note that the Appellant has argued
these as a group. See pages 4 and 28 of the brief.
37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) (July 1, 2000) as amended at 62 Fed.
Reg. 53196 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at the time
of Appellant filing the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which Appellant 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 on the basis of
that claim alone unless a statement is included that 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. Merely pointing out
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as
to why the claims are separately patentable.
We will, thereby, consider the Appellant’s claims as standing or
falling together, and we will treat claim 19 as a representative
claim of that group. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63
USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the brief fails to meet
either requirement [of 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)], the Board is free
to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007