Appeal No. 96-3032
Application No. 08/321,392
Claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murray in view of
Taylor.3
Claims 2-4, 7, 10-12, 15, 18, 19 and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murray in
view of Tannenbaum.
The arguments of the appellants and examiner in support
of their respective positions may be found on pages 16-42 of
the brief and pages 6 and 7 of the answer.
OPINION
At the outset we note that the appellants have not
separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 3, 4,
8, 11, 12 and 19 with any reasonable degree of specificity.
Accordingly, these claims fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 292
n.3, 30 USPQ2d 1455, 1456 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Note also
3Although claim 9 has been included in this rejection on
page 4 of the answer, we note that this claim has been
canceled (see Paper No. 9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007