Appeal No. 2005-0324
Application No. 09/390,824
view of Cranston and Beak. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the
briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3
through 15, 17 through 19 and 23 through 30.
Grouping of the Claims
At the outset, we note that appellant states, on page 3 of the brief, that:
With regards to Issues (A) to (D), above, independent claims 1, 8, 13, 17,
and dependent claims 3-7, 9-12, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 23-30 stand or fall
together.
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c) (7) (July 1, 2003) 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
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007