Appeal No. 96-4027
Application 08/392,663
Dougherty 4,967,304 Oct. 30, 1990
Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murphy in view of Dougherty, Adamson and Cobb.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we make reference to the brief
and the answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 3,
6, 8 and 9 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of these
claims but we will reverse the rejection of the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set forth
infra.
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page 8 of the brief that the claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10,
11 and 14 "are considered to be separately patentable for reasons set forth [below] in the Argument."
We agree that Appellants have argued claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 and 14 separately. However, we note
that Appellants have not argued claim 8 separately. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(July 1, 1995) as
amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17, 1995), which was controlling at the time of Appellants'
filing the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant contests and which applies to a group of
two or more claims, the Board shall select a single claim from the group and shall
decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection on the basis of that claim alone unless a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007