Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
through 19 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barrett and Clark. Thus, we will sustain the
rejection for these claims but we will reverse the rejection of
remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have indicated on
page 6 of the brief the groupings of the claims. In particular,
Appellants state that claims 18 and 19 do not stand or fall
together with claim 17. We note that Appellants have argued
separate patentable issues pertaining to claims 18 and 19 but do
not argue separate patentable issues pertaining to claim 20. 37
CFR § 1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988 states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant contests
and which applies to more than one claim, it will be
presumed that the rejected claims stand or fall
together unless there is a statement otherwise, and in
the appropriate part or parts of the arguments under
subparagraph (c)(6) of this section appellant presents
reasons as to why appellant considers the rejected
claims to be separately patentable.
As per 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988, which was
controlling at the time of Appellants’ filing the brief, we will,
thereby, consider Appellants’ claim 20 to stand or fall together
with claim 17.
On pages 6 through 11 of the brief, Appellants argue that
the rejection of claims 1 through 6 and 8 as being unpatentable
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007