Appeal No. 97-1445 Page 4
Application No. 08/202,254
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellant appears in
the answer (Paper No. 20, mailed December 9, 1996), while the
complete statement of the appellant's argument can be found in
the brief (Paper No. 19, filed September 25, 1996).3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The appellant has not included a statement in the brief
that claims 7, 16, 18 and 19 do not stand or fall together and
has not included any argument in the brief explaining why
these claims are believed to be separately patentable.
Therefore, and in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we
3On August 13, 1996, the appellant filed an amendment after final
rejection along with a first appeal brief taking into account the amendment
filed therewith. The examiner refused entry of the amendment in an advisory
action mailed September 3, 1996. In response to the advisory action, the
appellant filed a new appeal brief on September 25, 1996 which reflects the
fact that the amendment filed August 13, 1996 was not entered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007