Appeal No. 2005-0131
Application 09/731,388
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 Appellants’ claims as standing or
falling together in the two groups noted above, and we will
treat:
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I; and
Claim 14 as a representative claim of Group II.
I. Whether the Rejections of Claims 1-13, 21-32, 40, and 42
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 are proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Eisenhart does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 1-2, 4-12, 21-22, 24-31, 40, and 42, and that
the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
invention as set forth in claims 3, 13, 23, and 32. Accordingly,
we affirm.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007