Appeal No. 95-3681
Application 07/956,705
covers but Appellants do not argue as why the claim is separately
patentable. In addition, on pages 14 and 15, Appellants argue
claims 4, 21 and 34 as a group. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) amended
October 22, 1993 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 a statement is included that
the claims of the group do not
stand or fall together, and in the
appropriate part or parts of the
argument under subparagraph (c)(6)
of this section appellant presents
reasons to why appellant considers
the rejected claims to be
separately patentable.
As per 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5), which was controlling at the time of
Appellants’ filing the brief, we will, thereby, consider
Appellant’s claims 1 through 3, 5 through 15, 17 through 20, 22
through 33 and 35 through 39 to stand or fall together, with
claim 17 being considered the representative claim. Furthermore,
we will consider claim 16 separately. Finally, we will consider
claims 4, 21 and 34 to stand or fall together.
On pages 7 and 10 of the brief, Appellants argue that
Treat does not provide an enabling teaching for automatic
selection of a carrier for placement of a telephone call.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007