Appeal 2006-2594
Application 10/034,394
B. REJECTION
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Web Page Filtering and Re-Authoring for Mobile Users, The Computer
Journal, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 534-546, April 21, 1999 ("Bickmore") and U.S.
6,489,976 B1 ("Patil").
II. CLAIM GROUPING
"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) (2005).1 "A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim." Id.
Here, the Appellant argues claims 1 and 15, which are subject to the
same ground of rejection, as a group. (Br. 17.) Furthermore, he merely
points out what claims 2-7 and 16-21 recite and alleges that such limitations
are not taught by the references. (Id. 10-13, 20.) Because these allegations
1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the
time of the Appeal Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013