Appeal No. 95-2599
Application 07/983,931
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6, 8 through 10, 22, 24 and 25.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have indicated on
page 7 of the brief that claims 6, 8, 22 and 24 stand or fall
together with claim 25 and that claims 9 and 10 are independently
patentable over claim 25. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) amended October
22, 1993 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 a state-
ment is included that the rejected claims do
not stand or fall together, and in the appro-
priate part or parts of the argument 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), which was controlling at the time of
Appellants' filing the brief, we will, thereby, consider
Appellants' claims 6, 8, 22, 24 and 25 to stand or fall together,
4(...continued)
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the
claims 23, 26, 33 and 34 present in copending application, serial
no. 07/787,912 (now U.S. Patent 5,543,646 issued August 6, 1996).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007