Appeal No. 1996-2963 Page 4
Application 07/952,427
claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the respectively applied prior art for substantially those
fact findings and conclusions set forth in the answer and as
further discussed below. However, we will not sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 31. Our reasons follow.
Rejection of Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-22
Appellants have not grouped the claims separately with
respect to this ground of rejection, nor have appellants
provided arguments for the separate patentability of the
claims in accordance with 37 CFR §§ 1.192(c)(7) and
(c)(8)(iv)(1995). Therefore, we need only consider the
propriety of the examiner's rejection of independent claim 16,
which we select as a representative claim for purposes of
deciding this appeal with respect to this ground of rejection.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1571, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Wood,
582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Representative claim 16 is drawn to a steam sterilizable
system including “a container having a therapeutically
effective amount of a methylene blue solution that has a pH of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007