Appeal No. 2006-2118 Page 7
Application No. 10/022,754
species or particular type of pointing device, such as a pencil or pen) [Grover,
col. 9, lines 22 and 23; see also claim 1]. See Perricone v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d at 1377, 77 USPQ2d at 1326 (“disclosure of a
broad genus does not necessarily specifically disclose a species within that
genus.”). However, we agree with the examiner that the instant claimed “stylus
input system” (i.e., an input system that uses a pointed instrument such as a
pencil or a pen) broadly reads upon Grover’s explicit disclosure of a “light pen”
which is clearly a particular type (i.e., species) of the genus of all pointed
instruments [col. 9, lines 22 and 23].
We note that claims 2, 4, 6 and 7 fall with independent claim 1 since
appellant has not separately argued the patentability of these claims. 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). Accordingly, we will also sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth by the examiner in
the rejection.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of all claims on
appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007