Appeal No. 96-2715
Application 08/359,673
set forth in claims 2, 3, 6-10, 24 and 25. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
two groups: Group I has claims 24, 25, 2, 3 and 8-10 , and 2
Group II has claims 6 and 7 [brief, page 3]. Consistent with
this indication appellants have made no separate arguments
with respect to any of the claims within each group.
Accordingly, all the claims within each group will stand or
fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ
136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991,
217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we will only
consider the rejection against claims 24 and 6 as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
We consider first the rejection of independent claim
24 as unpatentable over the teachings of Abe and Bourdier. In
2Although the rejection of claim 10 relies on an
additional reference than the other claims, appellants make no
arguments with respect to the separate rejection of claim 10.
Therefore, our discussion of claim 24 will dispose of claim 10
as well.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007