Appeal No. 2005-0062
Application 09/222,906
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 18-19, as Group I; and
Claims 6-7, and 13-17, as Group II.
See page 4 of the brief. Furthermore, Appellant argues each
group separately and explains why each group is believed to be
separately patentable. See pages 5-7 of the brief and pages 1-4
of the reply brief. Appellant presents no arguments as to why any
claims within Group I, are separately patentable from the other
claims within that group. However, at page 4 of the reply brief
the Appellant presents arguments as to why claims 6-7 and 13-14
of Group II are separately patentable from the other claims
within that group. Appellant has fully met the requirements of
37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) (July 1, 2002) as amended at 62 Fed. Reg.
53169 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at the time of
Appellant’s filing of the brief. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) states:
Grouping of claims. 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 Appellant’s claims as standing or
falling together in three groups, and we will treat:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007