Appeal No. 1997-1059
Application No. 08/305,733
The ground of rejection presented for our review in this appeal
is as follows:1
Claims 28 through 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the admitted prior art.2
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including all
of the appellants’ arguments and evidence for patentability, we agree
with the examiner that the subject matter of the appealed claims
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the
admitted prior art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we affirm for essentially those reasons set forth in the
1 In the answer (Paper 36, third page), the examiner entered a
new ground of rejection as to claims 28-53 under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, this rejection was subsequently
withdrawn in the supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper 43, page 2).
2 Regarding the grouping of claims, the appellants submit that
claims 28-53 stand or fall “independently of each other, as
consistent with the separate arguments for patentability provided
hereinbelow” (Paper 35, substitute appeal brief filed April 8, 1996,
page 3). We note, however, that the appellants’ “separate
arguments” (pages 9-13) merely consist of pointing out what is
covered by each of claims 28-52 and reciting a conclusory statement
that the “aspect of the present invention is neither disclosed nor
suggested by the prior art.” No analysis is provided, much less an
explanation as to why each of claims 28-52 is separately patentable
from claim 53. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (1995), we select claim 53 and decide this
appeal as to the examiner’s ground of rejection on the basis of this
claim alone.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007