Appeal No. 95-5053
Application 08/048,188
Brief (Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as "Br__") for a
statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant states that the claims do not stand or fall
together (Br6). However, appellant does not separately argue
the patentability of the dependent claims as required for
claims to be treated as not standing or falling together. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) (1994) ("[I]t will be presumed that the
rejected claims stand or fall together unless a statement is
included that the rejected claims do not stand or fall
together, and in the appropriate part or parts of the argument
under subparagraph (c)(6) of this section appellant presents
reasons as to why appellant considers the rejected claims to
be separately patentable" (emphasis added)). The claims will
be presumed to stand or fall together with representative
independent claim 1.
Gillig teaches a cordless/cellular telephone
corresponding to the prior art discussed in the specification
at Section 2.1. Gillig discloses that "[i]n the U.S.A., the
cordless radio channels are in the frequency band from 46-49
mHz and the cellular radio channels are in the frequency band
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007