Appeal No. 95-2655
Application 07/912,029
do present reasons in support of this statement (see pages 12-
13 of the brief). However, these reasons advanced by
appellants are merely statements setting forth the limitations
of the dependent claims and do not provide reasons why these
claims are patentable over the reference. Therefore, the
claims stand or fall together. See 37 CFR § 1.192
(c)(5)(1993) and In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1391, 174 USPQ
259, 260 (CCPA 1972)(“While appellant’s reply brief emphasized
that his claims ‘are of varying scope and do not stand or fall
together,’ he has failed to point out what relevance the
additional limitations have to the patentability of the
narrower claims...”).
The subject matter on appeal is adequately illustrated by
claim 1, reproduced below:
1. A physiological visco-elastic formulation comprising
hyaluronate salt in an amount in the range of about 0.1% to
about 5% by weight in a balanced salt solution containing
calcium ions present in a concentration in the range of about
2.6 mM to about 3.9 mM and magnesium ions present in a
concentration in the range of about 1.2 mM to about 1.8 mM,
said formulation being ionically and osmotically balanced and
being free of phosphates.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007