Appeal No. 1997-1594
Application No. 08/247,090
As an initial matter, appellants’ Brief contains a
statement that the claims should not stand or fall together.
See Brief, page 7. However, no substantive argument has been
submitted by appellants with respect to either the rejection
under § 102 or
§ 103. At most, appellants refer to limitations present in
some dependent claims without presenting an argument as to why
each of the claims are believed to be separately patentable.
Accordingly, we select claim 1, the sole independent
composition claim as representative of appellants’ invention
and limit our consideration to said claim. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) 1995.
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with the
appellants that the aforementioned rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 are not well founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain
those rejections. We agree with the examiner that the
rejections over Chen under § 102 and § 103 are well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection over
Chen.
A. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007