Appeal No. 95-1092
Application 08/044,436
7-9 on page 4 of the answer. Accordingly, even though
appellants, in the technical sense, have not complied with the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) (1993) by making a
statement that the claims do not stand or fall together, we
will consider the separate patentability of claims 7-9 to the
extent that the claims have been separately argued in the
brief and addressed in the examiner’s answer. Accordingly,
dependent claims 2-6 will stand or fall with claim 1 while
dependent claims 8 and 9 will stand or fall with claim 7.
We have carefully considered the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. For the reasons set
forth below, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1-6 for essentially those reasons expressed in the
answer with additional comments added below primarily for
emphasis. However, we will reverse the rejection of claims 7-
9 for reason stated below.
The Rejection of Claims 1-6 over
Fujisawa in view of Iwatsu
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007