Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 references,” and “failed to identify where each and every limitation of
2 claims 1-4, 6-14, 21-22, 44-47, 49, 50, 57-65, 73-74, and 78-80 was
3 allegedly disclosed in the prior art of record.” (Br. p. 25, ll. 8).
4 As to the argument relating to differentiating among the various
5 claims, we note that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences does not
6 sit in a supervisory capacity over the Patent Examining Corps. 37 CFR
7 §1.104(b) requires the Examiner’s Action to be complete as to all matters. If
8 the Action was not complete, a petition to the Director under 37 CFR
9 §1.181(a)(1) or (3) should have been made. No such petition appears in the
10 record. By proceeding to appeal, the Appellants as a litigation strategy have
11 chosen to forego this argument.
12 Furthermore, even were we to deem the issue properly before us, the
13 Appellant has not argued any of these multiple claims separately as required
14 by our rules. By separate argument, we mean specific argument relating to
15 why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found a particular claim
16 or group of claims to be obvious. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii) requires separate
17 argument of claims; merely pointing out what a claim recites is not separate
18 argument.
19 Additionally, “. . .the Board may select a single claim from the group
20 of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the
21 group of claims that are argued together . . .” (Id.). We have selected claim
22 1; the Appellant has provided no meaningful argument or reasoning as to
23 why any of the other claims would have been separately patentable.
24 Accordingly, we need not reach the individual claims, as explained below.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013