Appeal No. 95-3388
Application 08/242,993
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) of this section appel-lant presents
reasons as 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
Appellants’ claims 26 through 28, 30, 31 and 35 to stand or
fall together.
We note that unlike the above claims, Appellants'
claims 26 through 28, 30, 31 and 35 are not limited to a
Markush group of memory technology that does not encompass the
Dhong memory. Appellants' claims 26 through 28, 30, 31 and 35
are only limited to a Markush group that includes "a random
access memory." We note that Dhong discloses a dynamic random
access memory which is a random access memory. Therefore, we
find that Dhong meets Appellants' Markush group limitation
which is recited in these claims.
Furthermore, we note that Appellants have chosen not
to argue any of the other specific limitations of claims 26
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007