The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte KONSTANTINOS PAPATHOMAS
______________
Appeal No. 2005-0181
Application 09/781,631
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, DELMENDO, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 31-70. A copy of claims 31,
35, 36, 41, 42, 52, and 54 is set forth in the attached appendix.
Appellant states that the claims cannot be grouped together.
Brief, page 5. The examiner groups the claims as follows: claims
31-35, claims 36-41, claims 42-46, claims 47-51, claims 52-61,
and claims 62-70. The examiner states that appellant does not
indicate that any of the dependent claims stand or fall
separately from a respective independent claim, and when
traversing the prior art rejection, the examiner states that
appellant does not separately argue dependent claim limitations.
The examiner states that, as such, the examiner assumes that
appellant intends for all the dependent claims to stand or fall
with a respective independent claim. Answer, page 3.
We select the broadest claim in each respective rejection for
consideration in this appeal. This selection is indicated in
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007