Appeal No. 95-0953
Application 07/976,328
which incorporates by reference the chestpiece limitations of
claim 1. The chestpiece limitations of claims 11-13, 15, and
16, which depend directly or indirectly on stethoscope
claim 9, parallel identically the chestpiece limitations in
claims 2-4, 6, and 7, which depend directly or indirectly on
chestpiece claim 1. We agree with appellant that it is
acceptable to refer to arguments made with respect to
identical limitations in other claims rather than repeating
the arguments. This is not the situation where a dependent
claim is stated to be patentable for the reasons given with
respect to an independent claim from which it depends.
Appellant separately argues each of dependent claims 2,
3, and 10 in the Dufresne rejection (Brief, pages 9-10). Even
if the examiner considers that claims 11 and 12 were not
properly argued, the examiner gives no excuse for not treating
claims 2, 3, and 10. Similarly, appellant separately argues
each of claims 2-4 and 6-9 in the Pfeiffer rejection (Brief,
pages 11-13). Even if the examiner considers that
claims 11-13, 15, and 16 were not properly argued, the
examiner gives no excuse for not treating claims 2-4 and 6-9.
The fact that some claims are not properly argued and could be
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007