Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
The main brief separately argues claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12,
15, and 16. As to claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, appellant argues that
the combinations of references do not teach the limitations of
claim 1, which does not constitute an argument why these claims
are separately patentable. Claims 3, 10, 13, and 14 are not
argued. Accordingly, the claims that are separately argued are
claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16. Claims dependent upon these
claims stand or fall therewith. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1994)
("it will be presumed that the rejected claims stand or fall
together unless a statement is included that the rejected claims
do not stand or fall together, and in the appropriate part or
parts of the argument under subparagraph (c)(6) appellant
presents reasons as to why appellant considers the rejected
claims to be separately patentable" (emphasis added)).
Reply Brief
In the main appeal brief, appellant did not argue the
separate patentability of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 13, and 14.
In the reply brief, appellant (through different counsel) now
argues the merits of claim 2 (Reply to Section 9.3, Reply Brief,
pages 5-6), claim 7 (Reply Brief, pages 13-14), claim 9 (Reply
Brief, pages 7-9), claims 10 and 13 (Reply Brief, pages 10-12).
These arguments presented for the first time in the reply brief
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007