Appeal No. 96-4052
Application 08/198,511
further in view of the admission that titanium contacts on SiC
were known and Steitz and Ajika as to the contacts recited in
claims 36-38. The rejection would have been clearer if it
were limited to claims 36-38 over the additional prior art of
titanium contacts, Steitz, and Ajika.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 9) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 16) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of appellants' position
thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellants set forth five groupings of claims (Br3):
(1) claims 31, 33, and 34 are said to stand or fall together;
(2) claims 35-39 are said to stand or fall together;
(3) claims 40-44 and 46 are said to stand or fall together;
(4) claim 45 us said to stand or fall alone; and (5) claims 48
and 49 are said to stand or fall together. Although
appellants state that claims within each group stand or fall
together (which means that the patentability of a group of
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007