Appeal No. 1997-3886
Application No. 08/232,460
(Brief, page 2). Appellant states that the claims stand or
fall “independently” of each other (Brief, page 3). However,
appellant has presented separate arguments for patentability
that merely recite the limitations of each dependent claim
with the recitation that “[t]his aspect of the present
invention is neither disclosed nor suggested by any of the
cited references.” (Brief, pages 9-11). Appellant has not
presented specific, substantive arguments for the separate
patentability of each claim. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995);
In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260 (CCPA
1972). Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7)(1995), we select claim 74 from the grouping of
claims and decide this appeal as to the grounds of rejection
on the basis of this claim alone. Illustrative claim 74 is
reproduced below:
74. A process for the preservation of vegetables,
which comprises subjecting said vegetables to a
gaseous atmosphere consisting essentially of
about 80% to 99% volume of gaseous argon and
about 1% to 20% volume of a second gas selected
from the group consisting of krypton, xenon,
neon and mixtures thereof, based upon the total
volume of the gaseous atmosphere.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007