Appeal No. 2006-0673 Page 5
Application No. 09/919,555
Accordingly, we advise the appellants that copying the Real Party in Interest,
Related Appeals and Interferences, Status of the Claims, Status of Amendments,
Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter, and Appendix of Appealed Claims sections of
their original appeal brief into their reply brief is neither required by, nor helpful to, the
Board. The reply brief's reiteration of the identical arguments made in the appeal brief
is also neither required by, nor helpful to, the Board. That said, our opinion addresses
the rejections in the following order:
• anticipation by Cattell '915
• anticipation by Cattell '351
• obviousness over Perttunen and Ellson
• obviousness over Perttunen, Ellson, and Zeleny
• obviousness type double-patenting over claims 1-19 of Cattell '351.
A. ANTICIPATION BY CATTELL '915
"When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a
group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that
are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which
appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board
must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Sep. 30, 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007