Appeal No. 1997-2455
Application 08/318,235
Claims 55, 77, 78 and 83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page 10
of appeal brief (brief) that with respect to the rejection
based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, claims 77, 78
and 83 stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) (July
1, 1995) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17, 1995),
which was controlling at the time of Appellants, 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 claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable. Merely
pointing out differences in what the claims cover is
not an argument as to why the claims are separately
patentable.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007