Appeal No. 1996-0249 Page 4
Application No. 08/076,709
Claims 1-13 and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of the Dow
brochure.
According to appellant (brief, pages 2 and 3), two
identified groups of claims are urged to be separately3
patentable with an indication by appellant that claims 1-11
stand or fall together and claims 12, 13, 22, and 23 stand or
fall together. We note that claims 20 and 21 have not been
identified as belonging to either of these groups and no
separate arguments specifically directed to claims 20 and 21
have been presented in the brief with a reasonable degree of
specificity so as to warrant the separate consideration
thereof with respect to the
§ 103 rejection. Accordingly, we consider the patentability
of claims 20 and 21 to rise or fall with the patentability of
claim 1 from which they ultimately depend. See 37 CFR § 1.192
(c)(7)(1995); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1526-1527 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we have
selected claim 1 as the representative claim from the grouping
3The claims identified by appellant (brief, pages 2 and
3) as belonging to groups (b) and (d) have been indicated as
allowable by the examiner as indicated above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007