Appeal No. 95-4203
Application 07/793,889
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-
24. Claims 25-42 remaining in the application are drawn to a non-elected invention and
accordingly are not before us.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to photoimageable cationically
2
polymerizable epoxy based coating material.
In their brief, appellants have grouped (1) claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 17-20
together (2) claim 3 on its own and (3) claims 21-24 together. However, appellants did not
present any arguments why the claims as grouped are separately patentable. The
examiner has correctly noted appellants’ failure in the examiner’s answer (page 2) and
appellants have not challenged the examiner’s position by way of petition under 37 CFR §
1.181. Accordingly, we will decide the appeal and decline to consider the patentability of
the claims separately in reaching our decision. Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1019
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991); Ex parte Ohsumi, 21 USPQ2d 1020, 1022 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1991). Having found that all the claims stand or fall together, we direct our attention to
claim 1 which is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
2Appellants state on page 10 of their amended brief that “None of the
references teach a 28 to 57% [sic] polyol resin and a 43-72% tetrabromo resin as recited
in claim 21. This singular statement does not constitute an argument in support of the
group claims 21-24 vis-a-vis the obviousness rejection made by the examiner.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007