Appeal No. 97-1070
Application 08/100,418
(filed July 26, 1993)
Claims 1 to 11, 14 to 16, 28 to 33, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Wier in view of Ina and Buck.3
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the
Brief, Reply Brief, Answer, and Supplemental Answer for the respective details thereof.4
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’ statement at the top of page 3 of the
principal brief, appellants make no objection to claims 1 to 11, 14 to 16, 28 to 33, 37, and 38 being
grouped together for purposes of this appeal. Thus, we are in agreement with the examiner’s statement
at the top of page 2 of the Answer, that all of the claims on appeal stand or fall together. We select
claim 1 as being representative of the group of claims on appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
3 We note that appellants question in their Reply Brief (page 1) whether or not the grounds of rejection set
forth in the final rejection still apply on appeal. This appears to be a legitimate question since the Examiner’s Answer
(page 2, paragraph 18) provides no grounds of rejection, lists only new grounds of rejection (Answer, pages 2 to 6,
paragraphs 19 to 23), and fails to clearly indicate whether or not the previous rejection has been withdrawn as
required by MPEP § 1208(A)(6)(b). In light of the examiner’s statement in the Supplemental Answer (page 1) that
the only rejection pending appeal is the new grounds given in the Answer, we take the previous rejection given in
the final Office action as having been withdrawn.
4 We note that at page 1 of the Supplemental Answer, the examiner states that the Reply Brief and the
amendment under 37 CFR § 1.193(b) (both filed on August 5, 1996) have been "entered and considered."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007