Appeal No. 97-1313
Application 07/931,695
We do not regard this statement, and appellants' similar statements concerning the other dependent
claims, as sufficient to justify grouping the dependent claims separately from claim 1. As 37 C.F.R. §
1.192(c)(7) states, "Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to
why the claims are separately patentable." All appellants have done here is state what subject matter
the dependent claims cover, without presenting any reasons as to why they consider that those claims
would be patentable (i.e., unobvious) over Pollack. Dependent claims 2, 3, 7 to 14 and 16 to 19 will
therefore fall along with claim 1.5
Accordingly, rejections (6) and (7) will be sustained.
5The argument presented on page 58 of the brief concerning claim 23 is moot, since claim 23
is not included in rejections (6) or (7).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007