Appeal 2007-0843
Application 09/725,393
representative claim 1 as being unpatentable over Bruckman in view of
Tiedemann.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to claims 2-5, 14, and 16-23 on the basis of the selected claim
alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as
being unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Tiedemann for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1.
Claims 6, 7, 9-11, 13, and 24
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 9-11, 13,
and 24 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Bruckman in view of
AAPA, and further in view of Tiedemann, and further in view of Buchholz.
Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select
dependent claim 10 as the representative claim for this rejection. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that even if Bruckman, AAPA, Tiedemann, and
Buchholz could be properly combined, Buchholz would not make up for the
deficiencies of Bruckman, AAPA, and Tiedemann (Br. 21-22).
We see no deficiencies with respect to Bruckman as modified by
Tiedemann, as discussed supra. We have found the teachings of AAPA are
cumulative to Tiedemann and unnecessary to support the rejection, as also
discussed supra. We note that Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of claims 6, 7,
9-11, 13, and 24. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to the
dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013