Appeal No. 95-4721
Application No. 08/128,332
the grandparent application X is either a chlorinated or
1
brominated aryl group. The Board affirmed the examiner's
rejection in the grandparent application under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the same Dix reference presently applied by the examiner.
Also, appellants now rely upon the Wallquist Declaration,
executed March 8, 1994, as evidence of unexpected results.
The Declaration was not before the Board in the grandparent
application.
Appellants submit at page 5 of the principal Brief that
"[c]laims 3-7 and 11 are argued together as to each issue."
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together
with claim 11. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018-19 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(5) and (c)(6) (1994).
Appealed claims 11 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dix.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we fully concur with the
examiner's legal conclusion that the claimed subject matter
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007