Ex parte HYATT et al. - Page 6




          Appeal No. 95-0143                                                          
          Application 07/865,849                                                      


          through 19 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being             
          unpatentable over Barrett and Clark.  Thus, we will sustain the             
          rejection for these claims but we will reverse the rejection of             
          remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.                 
               At the outset, we note that Appellants have indicated on               
          page 6 of the brief the groupings of the claims.  In particular,            
          Appellants state that claims 18 and 19 do not stand or fall                 
          together with claim 17.  We note that Appellants have argued                
          separate patentable issues pertaining to claims 18 and 19 but do            
          not argue separate patentable issues pertaining to claim 20.  37            
          CFR  1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988 states:                            
               For each ground of rejection which appellant contests                  
               and which applies to more than one claim, it will be                   
               presumed that the rejected claims stand or fall                        
               together unless there is a statement otherwise, and in                 
               the appropriate part or parts of the arguments under                   
               subparagraph (c)(6) of this section appellant presents                 
               reasons as to why appellant considers the rejected                     
               claims to be separately patentable.                                    
          As per 37 CFR  1.192 (c)(5) amended June 23, 1988, which was               
          controlling at the time of Appellants’ filing the brief, we will,           
          thereby, consider Appellants’ claim 20 to stand or fall together            
          with claim 17.                                                              
               On pages 6 through 11 of the brief, Appellants argue that              
          the rejection of claims 1 through 6 and 8 as being unpatentable             


                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007