Appeal No. 97-1890
Application 08/338,707
controlling at the time of Appellants' filing the brief,
states:
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.
We will, therefore, consider the Appellants' claims 1 through
3 as a group standing or falling together and claims 4 and 5
as a group standing or falling together. In addition, we will
treat claims 1 and 4 as representative claims of their
respective group.
On pages 2 and 3 of the brief, Appellants argue that
Francisco describes asynchronous control between stations, not
with each station as in the Appellants' invention. On page 6
of the answer, the Examiner points out that the claims are not
limited to control within a single station and that
Appellants' claim language reads on Francisco.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007