Appeal No. 1999-1773
Application No. 08/497,858
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the specification
adequately supports the invention which is now recited in claims 2-4, 6 and 8-10.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal the claims will all stand or
fall together as a single group [brief, page 10]. Consistent with this indication appellants
have made no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, all the claims before us will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991,
217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider the rejection against
independent claim 8 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
“containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.” These claims were also
rejected as “containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such
a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and/or use the invention” [final rejection, page 2, which was
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007