Appeal No. 1997-2977
Application No. 08/431,688
Babel et al. 5,296,285 Mar. 22,
1994
(Babel) (filed May 26, 1992)
Claims 1 through 14 and 22 through 26 stand rejected
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants
regard as the invention (examiner’s answer, page 3).
Also, claim 7 stands rejected under the fourth paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being in improper dependent form for
failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous
claim (examiner’s answer, page 4).
Further, claims 1 through 14 and 22 through 26 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Babel, Mozelewski, and Klahr (id.).
At page 7 of the substitute appeal brief, the appellants
state:
The Claims on Appeal, namely claims 1-14 and 22-
26 are all containing [sic] in a single group such
that the claims stand together or fall together, it
being recognized notwithstanding that independent
Claim 12, is more limited than independent Claim 1
and is more limited than independent Claim 12 [sic].
Beyond this, all claims do stand or fall together.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007