Appeal No. 2005-1180
Application No. 09/791,298
(8) Claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 43, 44, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Pickard and Cramer.
(9) Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Peiker, Pickard and Sorensen.
(10) Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Peiker, Pickard, Sorensen and Cramer.
Grouping of claims
Appellants group the claims on appeal as follows (Brief, p. 12):
Group 1: Claims 1-4, 7 and 8
Group 2: Claims 50-56
Group 3: Claims 5 and 9
Group 4: Claims 6 and 10
Group 5: Claims 11-15
Group 6: Claim 16
Group 7: Claims 17-19
Group 8: Claims 20-23, 26-28, 38-42 and 45-47
Group 9: Claims 24, 29, 43 and 48
Group 10: Claims 25, 30, 44 and 49
Group 11: Claims 31-36
Group 12: Claim 37
The examiner disagrees with this grouping but fails to suggest an alternative grouping.1
See Answer, p. 3. Therefore, for purposes of appeal the claims stand or fall as follows:
1 The examiner appears to be troubled by repetitive arguments made in the brief. We
note that repetitive arguments appear to be made with respect to identical or substantially
identical dependent claims. However, the independent claims from which these claims depend
differ in scope.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007