Ex parte LACOUNT - Page 4




                Appeal No. 97-1107                                                                               Page 4                  
                Application No. 08/047,512                                                                                               

                        The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims                  

                are:                                                                                                                     

                 Rossiter                           4,181,437                          Jan. 01, 1980                                     
                 Lew                                4,591,268                          May 27, 1986                                      
                 Nelson et al. (Nelson)             4,736,103                          Apr. 05, 1988                                     

                Barnes Analytical/Spectra-Tech IR/FTIR product catalog, pp 6-7, 1990 (Barnes).                                           


                        Claims 10, 15-21, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable                      

                over Barnes in combination with Rossiter and with or without the teachings of Lew.      Claim 27                         

                stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in combination with Rossiter                     

                and with or without the teachings of Lew and further in combination with Nelson.                                         

                        We sustain the examiner’s rejections for the following reasons.                                                  



                                                              OPINION                                                                    

                Claim Groupings                                                                                                          

                        The appellant states at page 3 of the brief that the claims do not stand or fall together.                       

                However, the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s determination, at page 3 of the examiner’s                        

                answer, that claims 10, 15-21, 23, 25 and 26 are not argued separately.  We also note that merely                        

                pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not a substantive argument as to why the claims are                 









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007