Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
each Claim Regarding § 112-1, § 103, and Double Patenting" merely
recites the claim limitations for each claim and concludes for
each claim that "the § 112-1 rejections do not establish why the
express disclosure of the limitations in this claim does not
satisfy § 112-1 (see Sections 8.1-8.3 and particularly the TABLE
OF TERMINOLOGY OCCURRENCES)." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) 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 ground of
rejection on the basis of that claim alone unless a
statement is included that the claims of the group do
not stand or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant explains
why the claims of the group are believed to be
separately patentable. Merely pointing out differences
in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why
the claims are separately patentable . (Emphasis ours)
Thus, notwithstanding appellant's assertions to the contrary
(Reply Brief, pages 1-4), appellant has provided no separate
arguments in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7).
The only place appellant separately treats any of the claims
is in the Summary of the Supplemental Appeal Brief, wherein
appellant reads claims 105, 177, 190, and 191 on the disclosure.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 80-81) that the examiner
misrepresents this reading of claims 105, 177, 190, and 191 on
the disclosure as evidence of meeting 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(i) states:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007