Appeal No. 2001-0865
Application 08/998,781
Wakabayashi et al. (Wakabayashi) 5,537,517 July 16, 1996
Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Saruwatari.
Claims 6, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Saruwatari as applied in
the rejection of claim 5, further in view of Wakabayashi.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 11) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 19) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 18) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief
(Paper No. 21) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
It is argued that none of the claims stand or fall together.
However, only claims which are separately argued are entitled to
be treated separately. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) (1998)
(argument section of brief must specify the errors in the
rejection and the specific limitations in the claims which are
not described in the prior art).
Appellant argues (Br8-11) that Zimmerman fails to teach or
suggest at least the following three features set forth in
independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 13 (the limitations of claim 1
are quoted as representative): (1) "performing a print
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007