Appeal No. 96-3392
Application 08/121,512
the invention and do not address the merits of the examiner's
rejection. Appellants refer to the two-component developer in
Yokoyama and Kurokawa, which limitation has been discussed
with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 20. Because
appellants have not argued any error in the examiner's
findings of fact or conclusions of law, the rejection of
claims 23, 30, and 36 is sustained.
Claims 25, 32, and 38 -- Yokoyama and Mokusu (Kisu)
Appellants' arguments regarding claims 25, 32, and 38
(Br18-20, Issue V(G)) are in the nature of a description of
the invention and a restatement of the rejection, but do not
address the merits of the examiner's rejection. Appellants'
argument that claims 25, 32, and 38 are patentable because
they depend on claim 20 (Br20) does not address the rejection.
Because appellants have not argued any error in the examiner's
findings of fact or conclusions of law, the rejection of
claims 25, 32, and 38 is sustained.
Claims 26, 33, and 39 -- Yokoyama and Nishio
- 17 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007