Appeal No. 2005-0247 Page 3
Application No. 10/171,657
as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection
based solely on the selected representative claim." Id.
Here, contrary to the appellants' allegation, they did not "only present[ ]
arguments with respect to claim 1. . . ." (Req. Reh'g at 7.) Instead, they argued
claims 1, 6, 7, 9,11-19, 24, 25, and 27 as a group. (Appeal Br. at 7-9.) Such an
argument left us free to select a single claim from the group of claims, which were
subject to a common ground of rejection, as representative of all claims therein and to
decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected representative claim.
We selected claim 13. Moon, at 4.
B. INK EJECTION
The appellants argue, "lt is required by claim 13 . . . that ink present in the
virtual chamber be ejected, not -previously- present in the virtual chamber." (Req.
Reh'g at 10.) "In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step
analysis. First, we construe the representative claim to determine its scope. Second,
we determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious." Ex Parte
Massingill, No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007