Appeal No. 95-2063
Application 07/965,314
As an initial matter we note the appellant’s statement in
the main brief that the claims do not stand or fall together.
Brief, p. 4; 37 CFR 1.192(c)(5)(1994); now 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
The appellant has (i) presented two claim groupings; i.e., Group
A comprising claims 12, 13, and 16, and Group B comprising claims
20 through 22, and (ii) argued the two groups separately.
Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, we have considered the
issues as they apply to representative claims from each group
which in this case are, claims 12, 20 and 21. The claims are
attached as an appendix to this decision.
The examiner does not rely on any prior art.
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 12, 13, 16, and 20 through 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on
specification which fails to provide an adequate written
description of the invention and failing to provide support for
the invention as now claimed.
II. Claims 12, 13, 16, and 20 through 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007