Appeal No. 2006-0721 Page 4
Application No. 10/113,458
summary, if properly written to set out the exact nature, operation, and purpose of the
invention, will be of material assistance in aiding ready understanding of the patent in
future searches." M.P.E.P. § 608.01(d). Here, because the appellants' instant
specification omits such a brief summary, one should be added.
"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).
Here, the only claims that the appellants argue individually are claims 1 and 5.
(Appeal Br.1 at 12.) Therefore, we select claim 1 as the sole claim on which to decide
1We cite to the appellants' amended appeal brief, filed June 6, 2005, because
their original appeal brief was defective. (Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Br.)
The latter brief has not been considered in deciding the appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007