Appeal No. 96-2742
Application No. 08/311,371
As a preliminary matter we note that appellants indicate
on page 9 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or fall
together and are each separately patentable. However, for
each of claims 2 through 17, appellants merely reproduce a
limitation recited in the claim. As stated in 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7), "Merely pointing out differences in what the
claims cover is not an argument as to
why the claims are separately patentable." Thus, appellants
have
failed to explain why the claims are believed to be separately
patentable. Accordingly, we will treat only the independent
claims, with the dependent claims as standing or falling
together with the corresponding independent claims.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 17.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007