Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
requires a first array placed directly thereon the second
substrate, we find that Appellant's claim language recites
this limitation. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7
through 10 which recite such a limitation.
However, upon reviewing claims 11 through 15, we fail to
find that these claims recite a second substrate having a
second linear electrode array thereon. At the outset, we note
that Appellant has indicated on page 5 of the brief the claims
stand or fall together. In addition, on pages 1 through 4 of
the reply brief as well as the supplemental brier, Appellant
argues claims 11 through 15 as a group. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)
amended October 22, 1993 states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant
contests and which applies to more than one claim,
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) of this section appellant
presents reasons as to why appellant considers the
rejected claims to be separately patentable.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007