Appeal No. 1997-2308
Application 08/504,266
the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter a new ground of
rejection of claims 25, 29, 31 and 32.
Rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,
13-16, 20-24, 26-28, 30 and 33-35
Appellants state that each of claims 21 to 35 is to be
considered independently (brief, page 5). Appellants,
however, do not provide a substantive separate argument as to
the patentability of any of these claims. All of the claims,
therefore, stand or fall together. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d
1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In
re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260 (CCPA
1972); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995). Hence, we address only the
sole independent claim, i.e., claim 15.
Vieira discloses an ink jet printing process wherein the
recording sheet comprises a substrate having thereon an image
receiving coating which can contain a biocide (col. 6, lines
53-58; col. 7, line 67 - col. 8, line 4).
Vieira does not disclose any specific biocides. To
remedy this deficiency the examiner relies upon the
acknowledgment in appellants’ specification (pages 18-20) that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007