Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 6
Application No. 08/222,913
The appellants state that claims 1-7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18,
19, and 25 should be considered separately for the appeal.
(Appeal Br. at 5.) They also state that the remainder of the
claims should be considered in the following groups for the
appeal: claims 12 and 20, claims 13-15, and claims 22-24.
(Id.) Conversely, the appellants omit a statement that claims
12 and 20 do not stand or fall together, a statement that
claims 13-15 do not stand or fall together, and a statement
that claims 22-24 do not stand or fall together. Besides
omitting reasons why claims 14, 15, 20, 23, and 24 are
separately patentable, they also omit reasons why claim 16 is
separately patentable from claim 17. Therefore, we consider
claims 1-7, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 25 to stand or fall
separately. We consider the remainder of the claims to stand
or fall together in the following groups:
• claims 12 and 20
• claim 13-15
• claims 16 and 17
• claims 22-24.
We also consider claims 12, 13, 17, and 22, as representative
of the respective groups. Next, we address the obviousness of
the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007