Appeal No. 94-3184
Application 07/924,828
(3) Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being clearly anticipated by Chu;
(4) Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Battista in view of Verhille.
Grouping of claims
The examiner's answer indicates that (Answer, p.2):
Appellant's brief includes a statement
that claims 5 and 6 do not stand or fall
together and provides reasons as set forth in
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(5) and (c)(6).
However, appellants in their brief expressly state that
"[f]or purposes of this Appeal, Claims 5 and 6 can be grouped to
stand or fall together" (Brief, p.3). Furthermore, appellants
have failed to explain why claim 6 is believed to be separately
patentable over claim 5. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Therefore,
for purposes of this appeal, claim 6 stands or falls with the
patentability of independent claim 5.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
“written description requirement”. According to the examiner,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007