Appeal No. 96-1499
Application 08/133,013
decision and supra, we held these claims to stand or fall with
independent claim 9 due to a lack of any separate arguments as
to the merits of any one claim.
While appellants are free to make such an argument
distin-guishing claims 1 and 3-5 over the disclosure of Steel
in any future prosecution, as by way, for example, of a
continuation
application, we have not found any such specific argument made
in the briefs and we find no error in our decision.
The request for reconsideration is granted to the extent
that we have reconsidered our decision but it is denied with
respect to making any changes therein.
DENIED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007