Ex Parte Burnhouse et al - Page 9

                Appeal 2007-0345                                                                             
                Application 09/812,417                                                                       
                                                                                                            
                not separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 8, 16, 22, and 28                
                with particularity,5 these claims fall with the independent 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).                                                           
                      For at least the above reasons, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of               
                claims 1-28 is sustained.                                                                    

                          New Grounds of Rejection Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)                                
                      Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter two new grounds of rejection                      
                under 35 U.S.C. § 101:  (1) a new ground of rejection for claims 1-4 and 6-8,                
                and (2) a new ground of rejection of claims 23-28.  The basis for each is set                
                forth in detail below.                                                                       
                      35 U.S.C. § 101 provides:                                                              
                      Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,                      
                      manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful                           
                      improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the                      
                      conditions and requirements of this title.                                             

                          Rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101                              
                      Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the                      
                claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.                               
                                                                                                            
                5 Although Appellants nominally argue the limitations recited in these                       
                claims in Item (7) in the paragraph bridging Pages 7 and 8 of the Brief,                     
                Appellants merely reiterate the claim language without presenting specific                   
                arguments or supporting analysis pertaining to these limitations.  Merely                    
                reciting the claim language, however, hardly suffices as a separate argument                 
                for patentability of the claims.  See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).                   
                Therefore, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima                    
                facie case of anticipation for these claims.                                                 

                                                     9                                                       

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013