Appeal No. 1997-0629
Application No. 08/085,505
in support of the rejection and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior art
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Britton fully meets the invention
as recited in claims 2-8. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellant has indicated (Brief, page 4) that, for
purposes of this appeal, claims 2-6 are grouped separately,
and separate arguments for patentability have been provided
for each of claims 2-6. The limitations of dependent claims 7
and 8 have not been argued separately despite Appellant’s
listing of these claims in a separate group. According,
claims 7 and 8 will stand or fall with their base claim 2.
Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
At the outset, we note that anticipation is established
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007