Appeal No. 2006-1095 Page 11
Application No. 10/280,188
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 12-15 and 18-23. See
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will also sustain
the examiner’s rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Boiarski for
the same reasons set forth in the rejection.
II. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 12-15, 18-
20, 22 and 23 as being anticipated by Dietz. Since Appellants’ arguments
with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group
which stand or fall together, we will consider independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
Appellants argue that Dietz does not teach multiple electromagnetic
modes of propagation, at least with respect to interactions at the coupling
region, affecting the interaction of the propagational modes, as required by
the language of claim 1 [brief, page 5].
The examiner notes that Dietz discloses that the surface or layer that
is altered with a specific molecule, antigen and/or antibody has an index of
refraction that is proportional to the concentration of chemical or biological
agents attached to the molecules, antigen and/or antibodies on the surface
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007