Appeal No. 2005-2299
Application No. 10/603,714
wherein data transmission through the optical cable
uses a protocol that is different than a protocol used
for data transmission between the integrated electrical
connector and the matching electrical connector.
THE REFERENCE
Bucklen US 2002/0159725 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
(patent application publication)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bucklen.1
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellants argue that the claims stand or fall in three
groups: 1) claims 1-7, 2) claims 8-14, and 3) claims 15-20 (brief,
page 3). The appellants, however, make the same argument for each
group (brief, pages 6-11). The claims, therefore, stand or fall
together. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d
1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 41.67(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Accordingly, we limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1.
1 A rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement, is withdrawn in the
examiner’s answer (page 3).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007