Appeal No. 97-1107 Page 4
Application No. 08/047,512
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims
are:
Rossiter 4,181,437 Jan. 01, 1980
Lew 4,591,268 May 27, 1986
Nelson et al. (Nelson) 4,736,103 Apr. 05, 1988
Barnes Analytical/Spectra-Tech IR/FTIR product catalog, pp 6-7, 1990 (Barnes).
Claims 10, 15-21, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Barnes in combination with Rossiter and with or without the teachings of Lew. Claim 27
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in combination with Rossiter
and with or without the teachings of Lew and further in combination with Nelson.
We sustain the examiner’s rejections for the following reasons.
OPINION
Claim Groupings
The appellant states at page 3 of the brief that the claims do not stand or fall together.
However, the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s determination, at page 3 of the examiner’s
answer, that claims 10, 15-21, 23, 25 and 26 are not argued separately. We also note that merely
pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not a substantive argument as to why the claims are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007