Appeal No. 2006-1882
Application No. 10/431,617
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 16-20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of
Raffel does fully meet the invention as recited in claims 16-20. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants fail to separately argue claims 16-20. Rather, at page 8 of the brief,
Appellants merely state features of claim 16 and allege, without explaining why, that the
additional features render the claim separately patentable. The rules in effect at the
time the brief was filed specifically address the weight to be given the statements and
allegations presented by Appellants. See 37 CFR § 41.37 (c) (1) (vii) (2005):
A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered
an argument for separate patentability of the claim.
Appellants have not discussed why the evidence would support a holding that
claims 16-20 are patentable apart from claim 1. Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as standing or falling with
the patentability of claim 1.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1-20.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007