Appeal No. 1998-1844
Application No. 08/601,726
1
patentability of the dependent claims. We therefore select claim 13 as representative of
the subject matter, and hold claims 14-19 as falling with independent claim 13. See 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Appellants have provided no response with respect to the rejection of claims 20-24,
27-31, and 34-41. Independent claims 20, 31, and 38 are clearly different in scope from
claims 1 and 13, for which arguments have been submitted. Because the references are
directed to subject matter pertinent to appellants’ invention, because the prima facie
rejection of the claims submitted by the examiner appears reasonable, and because
appellants have not contested the rejection, we sustain the section 103 rejection of claims
20-24, 27-31, and 34-41. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a)(“Any arguments or authorities not
included in the brief will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown.”).
CONCLUSION
We have reversed the section 103 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12, but have
affirmed the rejection of claims 13-24, 27-31, and 34-41. The examiner’s decision in
rejecting claims 1-4, 6-24, 27-31, and 34-41 is thus affirmed-in-part.
1We also note that the claims dependent on claim 13 are not “similar” to the claims dependent on
claim 1, since each of the claims incorporate the limitations of its respective base claim. The scope of
claim 1 is clearly different from the scope of claim 13, and appellants have submitted different reasons for
why claim 1 and claim 13 are believed to be patentable over the references.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007