Appeal No. 1998-1623
Application 08/433,625
precision and particularity, we find in light of the teachings
of the disclosure that it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art that the term “dissociate” describes
the process in which the AuPb breaks down into the simpler
2
constituents of gold and lead. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of the claims 21, 22, 31, 32 and 34
through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims 20 through 24, 26, 28, 31 and 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Brady.
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page 5 of
the brief that claims 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 stand or fall
together. We note that Appellants argue all of these claims
as a single group in the brief. We further note that
Appellants argue claims 21, 22, 31 and 32 separately. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 1995) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518
(March 17, 1995), which was 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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007