Appeal No. 95-0953
Application 07/976,328
grouped to stand or fall together according to 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(5) does not excuse failing to treat claims that are
properly argued. As discussed, claims 11 and 12 in the
Dufresne rejection and claims 11-13, 15, and 16 in the
Pfeiffer rejection were properly argued.
The examiner also criticizes how claims 9 and 17 are
argued in the Dufresne rejection and how claims 9, 10, and 17
are argued in the Pfeiffer rejection (Examiner's Answer,
page 4). Appellant states that claim 17 is grouped with
claim 9 both in the grouping of claims for the Dufresne
rejection (Brief, page 4) and in the argument (Brief,
page 10). It is clear that claim 17 is grouped to stand or
fall with claim 9 in the Dufresne rejection. Appellant also
states that claims 10 and 17 are grouped with claim 9 both in
the grouping of claims for the Pfeiffer rejection (Brief,
page 4) and in the argument (Brief, pages 13 and 14). It is
clear that claims 10 and 17 are grouped to stand or fall with
claim 9 in the Pfeiffer rejection. The fact that the argument
section mentions the limitations of the claims does not affect
the claim grouping. The examiner's confusion with respect to
claim 17 in the Dufresne rejection and claims 10 and 17 in the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007