Appeal No. 96-3019
Application No. 08/386,136
OPINION
Appellants submit that the dependent claims do not
necessarily stand or fall together with independent claims 1
and 20. Appellants state, “an argument will be presented as
to why all pending claims are patentable over the prior
art....,” Brief, Page 4. However, no claim is argued with
specificity. Accordingly, we treat the claims as standing or
falling together. We select claim 1 as representative of
appellants’ claimed subject matter and limit our consideration
to said claim. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are essentially in agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable
in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons
provided in the Answer. In addition, we add our own rationale
for affirming the ground of rejection.
In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, we
find that both Sebald, pages 10-11 and Sezi, pages 11-12,
disclose copolymers containing anhydride functionality and
carboxylic acid ester groups wherein R of Sebald and R of3 5
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007