Appeal No. 97-0056 Page 4
Application No. 07/791,156
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The appellants state on page 3 of the brief that "each of
the claims, being independent, should be separately
considered." However, as the appellants have chosen to argue
the patentability of the claims without regard to any
particular claim, we shall consider each of the appellants'
arguments based on representative claim 59, with claims 57, 58
and 60 standing or falling therewith. See In re Wiseman, 596
F.2d 1019, 1021-1022, 201 USPQ 658, 660 (CCPA 1979); In re
Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA
1979); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 1309-1310, 177 USPQ 170,
172 (CCPA 1973).
Claims 57 through 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Duval. The examiner concedes that
Duval fails to teach the application of an anti-fray
composition on discrete portions of each of the strips of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007