Appeal No. 1997-1011
Application No. 08/250,631
Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Takarada in view of Niioka, further in
view of Seth-Smith with respect to claims 16 and 17.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 27,
mailed May 21, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 29, mailed November 25, 1996) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant's Brief (Paper No. 26, filed January 23, 1996) and
Reply Brief (Paper No. 28, filed July 26, 1996) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates on
page 5 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or fall
together. Appellant supplies arguments as to the separate
patentability of claims 11 and 16, but does not mention claim 12,
and merely reproduces the limitations recited in each of claims 2
through 10, 13 through 15, and 17 through 22. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (1995), which was controlling at the time of
appellant's 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007