Appeal No. 96-3392
Application 08/121,512
lines 3-15; page 6, line 26 to page 7, line 3), as applied in
the rejection of claims 5, 11, and 16.
Appellants repeat the rejection, but do not address the
examiner's reasons (Br14-15). Appellants argue that the
claims are dependent on claim 1, which is considered to be
allowable, and they should be allowable therewith (Br15).
These arguments do not comply with the PTO requirements for
claims to be considered separately argued. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (1995). Therefore, claims 5, 11, and 16 are
presumed to stand or fall together with claim 1, from which
they indirectly depend. The rejection of claims 5, 11, and 16
is sustained.
Claims 6, 12, and 17 -- Kurokawa and Nishio
Appellants argue that claims 6, 12, and 17 are dependent
on claim 1, which is considered to be allowable, and they
should be allowable therewith (Br15). Thus, claims 6, 12, and
17 have not been separately argued, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv),
and are presumed to stand or fall together with claim 1, from
which they directly or indirectly depend. The rejection of
claims 6, 12, and 17 is sustained.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007