Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
• Claims 2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kent in view of Cornuejols and further in view of Mohr
(US Patent No. 6,826,727 B1).
• Claims 3, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kent in view of Cornuejols and further in view of
McCormick (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0059339 A1).
• Claims 4, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kent in view of Cornuejols and further in view of
Dowling (Melissa Dowling, Breaking the Pagination Rules, Catalog Age;
June 1997; 14, 6; pp. 77-79) and Weiss (US Patent No. 6,801,333 B1).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant, in the Appeal Brief2, argues the claims in accordance with
the following groups corresponding to the rejections:
• claims 1, 8-10, 17-19, 26, and 27 (Appeal Br. 12-16);
• claim 2, 11, and 20 (Appeal Br. 16-17);
• claims 3, 12, and 21 (Appeal Br. 17-18); and,
• claims 4, 13, and 22 (Appeal Br. 18).
The rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 17-19, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Cornuejols.
Because Appellant argues claims 1, 8-10, 17-19, 26, and 27 as a
group, pursuant to the rules, the Board selects representative claim 1 to
decide the appeal with respect to this rejection, and claims 8-10, 17-19, 26,
and 27 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed Jun. 19, 2006), the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Jul.
27, 2006), and to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 13, 2006).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013