Appeal No. 96-1560
Application 08/084,366
Ertz. The final rejection also does not offer any separate analysis of the many claims
subject to this rejection. The answer simply incorporates the final rejection for the
explanation of this rejection [answer, page 3]. The first time that the examiner actually
makes a correspondence between elements of the claims and the disclosures of Powell
and Ertz occurs in the response to arguments section of the answer. There the examiner
reads selected limitations from the claims on the disclosures of Powell and Ertz. It is noted
that the examiner’s correspondence of elements considers only selected language of
claim 1 and does not consider all the language of claim 1. It is also noted that there is still
no indication of how the examiner is reading the dependent claims on the disclosures of
Powell and Ertz.
Appellants have nominally indicated that for purposes of this rejection the claims do
not stand or fall together because they are of different scope as “discussed below under
the ‘Argument section’” [brief, page 9]. In the arguments section of the brief, however,
appellants make no comments at all with respect to the dependent claims and they argue
the three independent claims 26, 34 and 49 as a single group. Thus, appellants have
made no arguments in support of their contention that the claims do not stand or fall
together. Accordingly, it is appropriate for us to treat the claims subject to this rejection as
standing or falling together as a single group. Note In re King,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007