Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
rejection of claims 89 through 156 as being unduly multiplied.
For the examiner's entire reasoning in this matter, we look to
Paper
No. 51, page 2 wherein he states:
Applicant is limited to no more than thirty (30)
claims. [Attention] is directed to MPEP 2173.05(n).
It is the Examiner's position that, in view of the
nature and scope of the invention and state of the
art, 68 claims is an unreasonable number.
The appellants argue that:
[i]n the present application the claims differ
substantially from one another and are not unduly
multiplied. The Office Action makes no showing to
the contrary (brief, page 13).
Appellants argue further that:
a rejection may be made if the number of claims is
unreasonable in view of the nature and scope of
appellants’ invention and the state of the art. In
this case there has been no showing that the number
of claims is unreasonable and . . . the claims
differ substantially from one another (brief, page
14).
Like the appellants, we are of the view that the
examination of one more independent claim (claim 136) and 37
dependent claims in the present application is not
unreasonable. Since the
examiner has made no showing that the claims do not differ
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007