Appeal No. 2005-0001
Application No. 09/268,902
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.
Accordingly, we will group the claims as follows:
Group A) claims 1, 40, 41, with claim 1 as representative of that group.
Group B) claims 2-5, 42 and 44, with claim 2 as representative of that
group.
Group C) claims 6-11, 13, 15-26, 28 and 30-35, with claim 6 as
representative of that group.
Group D) claims 12, 14, 27 and 29, with claim 12 as representative of that
group.
Group E) claims 36-38, with claim 36 as representative of that group.
Group F) claim 39.
Group G) claim 43.
Group H) claim 45.
Claim Group A (Claims 1, 40, 41)
Appellant argues, on page 9 of the brief that, “ Mitsuhashi does not teach
or suggest either (i) accepting design information of an integrated circuit core
entered in response to a prompt or (ii) accepting information for at least one
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007