Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
28, 1987. Claims 2-4 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.2
§ 103 as
being unpatentable in view of the combined teachings of either
Spencer or Gruhn and either McKay, U.S. Patent 3,691,749,
patented September 19, 1972 (McKay ‘749), or McKay, U.S.
Re. 29,363, reissued August 23, 1977 (McKay ‘363). Claims 5-7
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable in view
of the combined teachings of Spencer or Gruhn, McKay (‘749) or
McKay (‘363), and Bradley et al. (Bradley), U.S. 3,478,389,
patented November 18, 1969, or Aharoni et al. (Aharoni), U.S.
Patent 4,417,031, patented November 22, 1983. Appellants
state, “Claims 1-4 and 10 are considered to stand together.
Claims 5-9 are considered to stand together” (Br., p.3,
Grouping Of Claims). The examiner replies:
The brief includes a statement that claims do
not stand of fall together but fails to present reasons
in support thereof. Therefore, these claims are presumed
to stand or fall together. (Ans., p. 3)
Appellant presumes that Claim 4 stands finally rejected2
(Brief For Appellant, (Br.), p. 2, third full para.) and groups
Claim 4 with Claims 1-3 and 10 for our review of the appealed
rejections (Br., p. 3, Grouping Of Claims). So shall we. The
examiner includes Claim 4 in the Claims appealed (Ans., p. 3),
even though it has not been explicitly rejected.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007