Appeal No. 95-3208
Application 08/067,307
that Appellants argue claims 1 and 8 separately in regard to the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, and do not argue claims 13 through 18
separately, but as a group. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997) states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant contests
and which applies to a group of two or more claims, the
Board shall select a single claim from the group and
shall decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection
on the basis of that claim alone unless a statement is
included that the claims of the group do not stand or
fall together, and in the argument under paragraph
(c)(8) of this section appellant explains why the
claims of the group are believed to be separately
patentable. Merely pointing out differences in what
the claims cover is not an argument as to why the
claims are 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 Appel-
lants' claims 1 and 13 through 15 to stand or fall together, with
claim 1 being considered the representative claim and claims 8
and 16 through 18 to stand or fall together, with claim 8 being
considered the representative claim.
Appellants argue on page 5 of the brief that in their
invention, the entire beam of light will strike the detector when
no particle is being analyzed. Appellants argue that this
feature of the invention is claimed in step (b) of claim 8, which
recites, "detecting the light which was not scattered by the
particle" and in claim 1, which recites, "a means for detecting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007