Appeal No. 1994-3610
Application 07/805,474
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the
Appeal Brief, the Reply Brief and the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, the appellant states that the claims should be considered as six
separate groupings. [See Appeal Brief, pages 7-8.] We concur with this six grouping arrangement.
The first claim grouping consists of claims 1-2, 11, 14-19, 26-31, 33-34, 37-38 and 41-43. The
second claim grouping consists of claim 3. The third claim grouping consists of claims 4, 9-10 and 12-
13. The fourth claim grouping consists of claims 5-8. The fifth claim grouping consists of claim 39.
The sixth claim grouping consists of claims 20-23 and 40. Accordingly, with respect to patentability,9
all of the claims in each of these six claim groupings stand or fall together. [See 37 C.F.R. §
1.192(c)(5) and M.P.E.P. § 1206.]
We have carefully reviewed the positions of the appellant and the examiner, and have
conducted a thorough study of the references relied on by the examiner in formulating the rejections.
As a result of this review, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-23, 26-31, 33-34 and 37-43.
Accordingly, we reverse.
9This sixth claim grouping was modified from its original composition by the deletion of claim 24,
since it has been subsequently allowed by the examiner. [See Reply Brief, page 7.]
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007