Appeal No. 96-2593
Application No. 08/119,075
At the outset, we note that the examiner erred in not
giving separate consideration to specific claims separately
argued by appellants. The examiner's statement at page 2 of
the Answer explaining why the claims stand or fall together
does not withstand scrutiny. Since all the appealed claims
are directed to a thermoplastic polyester lamination
structure, it is manifestly clear that the examiner's
statement that "all claims are ultimately directed to a
composition (which is used to prepare a laminated structure)"
is without merit. Furthermore, the examiner's rationale for
holding that all the appealed claims stand or fall together
totally misses the point. Even if it was the case that all
the appealed claims are directed to a composition, this
certainly does not preclude appellants from separately arguing
different claims which recite different features of a
composition. Once an appellant separately groups and argues
different claims on appeal, it is the examiner's
responsibility to address the merits of appellant's arguments.
We now turn to the examiner's § 103 rejection of the
appealed claims. With the exception of claim 20, each of the
appealed claims requires at least one layer of another
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007