Appeal No. 96-2562
Application 08/214,858
double patenting over appellants' prior U.S. Patent No.
5,350,397.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full explana-
tion of the basis for the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 10, mailed May 15, 1995) and examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed February 20, 1996) for the exam-
iner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appel-
lants' brief (Paper No. 14, filed January 22, 1996) for appel-
lants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellants' brief, at
page 3, indicates that the claims on appeal "may be grouped
together," which statement we take as meaning that the claims
on appeal stand or fall together.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007