Appeal No. 1996-3547 Page 6
Application No. 08/089,854
As an additional matter and to the extent the examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 71-105 may have been premised on
their purported failure to further limit the claim(s) from which
they depend, we note that issues regarding whether or not a
dependent claim further limits a claim from which it depends are
appropriately addressed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 4. We
hasten to add at this juncture that we do not find, nor has the
examiner furnished, an adequate factual basis and reasoning to
support such a possible 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph,
inquiry.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 over Jones
Initially, we note that appellants state "the rejected
claims do not stand or fall together" (brief, page 4). However,
we note that appellants do not separately argue claims 13-19 and
68-70 and the arguments regarding claims 71-106 are not
sufficiently specific to be consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)
and (8) (1995) to warrant their separate consideration. In this
regard, merely pointing out differences in the coverage of the
claims does not amount to a separate argument warranting separate
consideration of the claims (brief, page 7). Accordingly, for
purposes of this rejection, we consider all of the claims to
stand or fall together. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007