Appeal No. 2005-0509 Page 5
Application No. 09/449,237
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 five
groups based on the distinct rejections and arguments presented by Appellant,
and we will treat:
Claim 81 as a representative claim of Group I (claims 81 and 93);
Claim 82 as a representative claim of Group II (claim 82);
Claim 85 as a representative claim of Group III (claim 85);
Claim 86 as a representative claim of Group IV (claims 83-84, 86-87, 90,
and 95-97), and
Claim 88 as a representative claim of Group V (claims 88-89 and 91-92).
If the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is free to select a single
claim from each group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on
the selected representative claim. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383,
63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 81 and 93 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007