Appeal No. 98-0111
Application No. 08/290,213
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over VanHoose in view of Taylor and Davis.2
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that the appellant has stated on
page 6 of the Brief that “[c]laims 1 and 3-6 and 8-13 all
stand or fall together.” However, since there are four
separate rejections based upon the prior art, with regard to
each of which the appellant provided argument, but has not
argued the merits of any particular claim apart from the
others, we shall interpret his statement as meaning that all
claims within each rejection are to stand or fall with a
representative claim of the group. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
2A rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, although recited on page 4 of the Answer,
was overcome by amendment, as is indicated on page 6 of that
same paper.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007