Appeal No. 95-4994 Page 7
Application No. 08/133,294
Since each and every element as set forth in claim 1 is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in White, we
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Claims 2 and 8 have not been separately argued by the
appellant. Accordingly, we have determined that these claims
must be treated as falling with claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and 37 CFR
§§ 1.192(c)(7) and 1.192(c)(8)(iv). Thus, it follows that the
examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by White is also sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1, 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007