Appeal No. 97-1932
Application 08/028,047
invention as set forth in claims 25-34. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claims 13-18. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
Appellant has nominally indicated that the claims do
not stand or fall together [brief, pages 4-6], but he has not
specifically argued the limitations of each of the claims as
required by 37 CFR § 1.192. The extent of appellant’s
arguments, with respect to each of the different rejections,
appears on pages 13-14 and 18-19 of the brief wherein it is
stated what is recited in each of the claims and then it is
baldly asserted that the prior art does not teach or suggest
the features of these claims with no analysis or discussion of
obviousness whatsoever. Simply pointing out what a claim
requires with no attempt to point out how the claims
additionally patentably distinguish over the prior art does
not amount to a separate argument for patentability. See In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). At the time appellant’s brief was filed, 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) required that the argument explain
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007