Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
Claims 25 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Massaloux, Tomoyuki, Wood, and Alanara.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 6) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 9) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 8) and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 10) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
Appellants submit that each claim is separately patentable. (Brief at 4.)
Appellants have not, however, met the requirements for separate review of the rejection
applied against each claim. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003), the rules in effect at the
time of the filing of the Brief, in pertinent part:
[37 CFR] § 1.192 Appellant’s brief.
....
(c) The brief shall contain the following items under appropriate
headings and in the order indicated below unless the brief is filed by an
applicant who is not represented by a registered practitioner.
....
(7) 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
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007