Ex Parte ATON - Page 3

         Appeal No. 1997-1011                                                        
         Application No. 08/250,631                                                  

               Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as           
         being unpatentable over Takarada in view of Niioka, further in              
         view of Seth-Smith with respect to claims 16 and 17.                        
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 27,             
         mailed May 21, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer                 
         (Paper No. 29, mailed November 25, 1996) for the examiner's                 
         complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to                     
         appellant's Brief (Paper No. 26, filed January 23, 1996) and                
         Reply Brief (Paper No. 28, filed July 26, 1996) for appellant's             
         arguments thereagainst.                                                     
               As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates on          
         page 5 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or fall                    
         together.  Appellant supplies arguments as to the separate                  
         patentability of claims 11 and 16, but does not mention claim 12,           
         and merely reproduces the limitations recited in each of claims 2           
         through 10, 13 through 15, and 17 through 22.  37 CFR                       
          1.192(c)(7) (1995), which was controlling at the time of                  
         appellant's filing the Brief, states,                                       
               For each ground of rejection which appellant contests                 
               and which applies to a group of two or more claims, the               
               Board shall select a single claim from the group and                  
               shall decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection                 
               on the basis of that claim alone unless a statement is                
               included that the claims of the group do not stand or                 
               fall together and, in the argument under paragraph                    
               (c)(8) of this section, appellant explains why the                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007