Appeal No. 98-2031
Application 08/794,154
1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed March 2, 1998) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review we have reached the determinations
which follow.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants (on page 4 of their brief) have grouped claims
1, 38, 41, 58, 60, 64 and 65 together, and claims 2 and 40 together, while claims 37, 50, 59 and 61
through 63 are said to be separately patentable. Accordingly, in discussing the issues on appeal we
focus particularly on representative independent claims 1 and 37, and on dependent claims 2, 50, 59
and 61 through 63.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
we note that appellants have made no attempt in either their brief or reply brief to respond to this
ground of rejection. In light of this fact and since we agree with the examiner’s position as set forth on
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007