Appeal No. 1996-1616
Application No. 08/158,673
Lüth, further in view of Müller (for claim 5), Korman (for
claim 7), or Yoshida (for claim 8).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Blanchard in view of Korman.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed October 25, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's Brief
(Paper No. 10, filed October 3, 1995) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant has
indicated on page 3 of the Brief that claims 1, 2 through 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are not to stand or fall together. However,
for claims 2 through 4, 7, and 9 appellant has not presented
reasons as set forth in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) as to why the 2
2 For each ground of rejection which appellant contests and which
applies to a group of two or more claims, the Board shall select a single
claim from the group and shall decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection
on the basis of that claim alone unless a statement is included that the
claims of the group do not stand or fall together and, in the argument under
paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant explains why the claims of the
group are believed to be separately patentable. Merely pointing out
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims
are separately patentable." 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (underlining added for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007