Ex parte MARK G. VOSS et al. - Page 4




              Appeal No. 96-1677                                                                                       
              Application 08/144,735                                                                                   



              states that claim 14 is different from claims 9 through 13.  However, the “ARGUMENTS”                    
              section of appellants’ Brief treats the claims together and does not include a second                    
              argument directed to claim 14.  In the Reply Brief, the appellants take issue with the                   
              examiner’s statement in the Examiner’s Answer that claims 9 through 14 stand or fall                     
              together.  Inasmuch as 37 CFR  1.192(c)(7) specifically requires both a statement that                  
              the claims do not stand or fall together and arguments under paragraph (c)(8)                            
              explaining why the claims of the group are believed to be separately patentable, and                     
              since we do not find any discussion of claim 14 independent from claims 9 through 13                     
              in the “ARGUMENT” section of the appellants’ Main and Reply Brief, we conclude that                      
              the examiner is correct and that claims 9 through 14 shall stand or fall together.  We                   
              limit our analysis to claim 9.                                                                           
                     The sole issue on appeal is the rejection by the examiner of claims 9 through 14                  
              under 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph.  The examiner has objected to the specification                  
              and rejects claims 9 through 14 for the reason that the specification discloses the                      
              flanges as being peripheral.  According to the examiner, there is no disclosure of the                   
              flanges being merely elongate.                                                                           




                                                       Opinion                                                         

                                                          4                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007