Appeal No. 1996-4058
Application No. 07/837,619
THE REJECTION
Claims 13, 14, 24, 28 through 33, 36 through 38, 42, and
47 through 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as the specification as originally filed does not
support the invention as now claimed.
OPINION
As an initial matter, appellants’ Brief contains a
statement that the appealed claims stand or fall together.
See Brief, page 4. As each of the independent claims before
us contain the limitation, “said alloy being resistant to
oxidation at 1550EC,” we select claim 47, an independent alloy
claim, as representative of appellants’ invention and limit
our consideration to said claim. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection.
Appellants amended their claims by inserting the phrase,
“said alloy being resistant to oxidation at 1550EC.” See the
Amendment executed May 16, 1994 and filed May 20, 1994 wherein
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007