Appeal No. 97-0064
Application No. 08/286,785
support of the rejections, and to the appellants' Brief (Paper
Nos. 13 and 20, filed January 16, 1996 and April 8, 1999,
respectively) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 16, filed July 29, 1996)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants state on
page 4 of the Brief that "each claim is believed to contain
patentable subject matter in its own right and should not be
grouped together." For the next four pages appellants reproduce
the limitations recited in each claim. Also, in the paragraph
bridging pages 22 and 23, appellants group claims 4, 10, and 16;
claims 5 and 11; claims 6, 7, 12, and 13; and claims 3, 8, 9, 14,
and 15; and for each group state that the references do not teach
the particular additional limitation. However, appellants have
not presented arguments in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(1995).4 Accordingly, we will consider all of the claims as
grouped together, with claim 1 as representative.
4 "For each ground of rejection which appellant contests and
which applies to a group of two or more claims, the Board shall
select a single claim from the group and shall decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection on the basis of that claim alone
unless a statement is included that the claims of the group do
not stand or fall together and, in the argument under paragraph
(c)(8) of this section, appellant explains why the claims of the
group are believed to be separately patentable. Merely pointing
out differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to
why the claims are separately patentable " (underlining added for
emphasis).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007