Appeal No. 97-3718
Application 08/480,579
the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, (4)
reversed the rejection of claims 4 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and (5) reversed the rejection of claim 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. The request is directed to claim 11 (which was
inadvertently omitted from the above-noted rejections) and to
our affirmance of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to claim 11 (which depends from claim 4), the numeral
11 was inadvertently omitted from our decision in line 14 of
page 8, and lines 2 and 12 of page 10. Thus, "claims 4 and
19" in each of these lines should have read -- claims 4, 11
and 19 --.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, the request states that:
The decision by the Board affirmed the
rejection of dependent claims 5 - 6,
without considering these claims on the
merits, because Applicant, in its Appeal
Brief, inadvertently grouped Claims 5 and 6
together with independent Claim 1 (not
Claim 4) and did not separately argue
Claims 5 - 6. However, since Claim 5
depends from Claim 4 and Claim 6 depends
from Claim 5, Claims 5 - 6 should have been
more accurately and appropriately grouped
(and argued) together with Claim 4, the
patentability of which was argued
separately from independent Claim 1 (pages
11 - 15 of Applicant's Appeal Brief filed
on October 22, 1996). [Page 2.]
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007