Appeal No. 98-2779
Application 08/496,604
subject matter (e.g., independent claim 1) and proceed to
decide the appeal on the basis of that claim alone (See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)). However, in this case, in both the brief and
reply brief, appellant has made separate arguments that go to
the propriety of the examiner’s combination of Schlein with
Kurwa (applicable, for example, to claims 1 and 2) and English
with Kurwa (needed to additionally address the limitations of
claims 3 through 13). The examiner, in her answer, has
separately responded to each of appellant’s lines of argument.
Accordingly, since the examiner and appellant have both
provided their positions on the propriety of the respective
combinations of prior art noted above, we deem it appropriate
to review each of those combinations in deciding this appeal.
We hasten to add that inconsistencies between appellant’s
grouping of the claims and separate arguments presented in the
brief, like those noted above, should normally be resolved
prior to the application being forwarded to the Board for our
treatment of the appeal.
In reviewing the examiner's prior art rejection of the
appealed claims, the only difference we perceive between the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007