Appeal No. 95-1641
Application No. 07/825,927
us to conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejections are well-
founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejections for essentially those reasons set forth in the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
At the outset, we note that appellants have separately
argued the claims as the following groups (Brief, pages 3-18):
Group I - Claims 1 through 7 and 10 through 14;
Group II - Claims 8 and 9; and
Group III - Claims 15 and 16.
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the claims in each
group will stand or fall with the broadest claim therein,
namely claims 1, 8 and 15. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) and (6)
(1993).
With respect to the subject matter defined by claim 1,
the examiner states that “Yamauchi discloses the claimed
crystallization process except for [specifically mentioning
the maintenance of] a specific temperature difference [of less
than about 10 C as recited in claim 1]...”. See Answer, pageo
3 in conjunction with claim 1. However, the examiner
determines that the maintenance of “a temperature difference
o o
of less than about 10 C” includes the cooling rate of 0.2 to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007