Appeal No. 97-3070
Application 08/584,097
nonobviousness, the appellant has relied on two declarations
by Close and a declaration by Ross.
OPINION
Initially we note that the appellant has not separately
argued the patentability of dependent claims 15 and 17-27. 3
Accordingly, these claims will stand or fall with parent claim
12. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner, the respective positions advanced
by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in the
answer, and the evidence of nonobviousness supplied by the
appellant. As a consequence of this review, we will sustain
all of the above-noted rejections.
3As to claims 23, 26 and 27, the appellant has stated
with respect to each of these claims that the limitations
thereof are "not relied on to show the nonobvious nature of
the claimed invention" (see brief, pages 12 and 13).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007