Appeal No. 95-2799
Application No. 07/799,806
metal compound film retains its metallic properties upon
heating due to the presence of the protective layer.
Notwithstanding the grouping of claims set forth at page
3 of appellants' principal Brief, appellants present separate
arguments only for claims 8-10, as a group. Accordingly,
appealed claims 1-7 stand or fall together with claim 1. In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987); Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018-19 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) and (c)(6)
(1993).
Appealed claims 1-7 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP '948 in view of
GB '428. Claims 1-10 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over JP '948 and GB '428 or
Goodman. Appealed claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.2
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Goodman.
2The statement of this rejection in the Examiner's
Answer does not include the JP '948 reference. However,
inasmuch as the final rejection of claims 1-10 includes JP
'948, and appellants' Brief acknowledges the final rejection
of claims 1-10 as an issue on appeal, we will consider the
omission of JP '948 in the Answer's statement of the rejection
an oversight and harmless error.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007