Appeal No. 1997-3094
Application 08/405,279
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the rejections of claims 25, 27/25, 28/25,
29/25, 30/25, 31/25, 38/25, 39/25, 40/25 and 41 are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections. We affirm
the rejections of claims 26, 27/26, 28/26, 29/26, 30/26,
31/26, 32-37, 38/26, 39/26, 40/26 and 42.
Appellants state in their brief (page 8) that the claims
stand or fall in the following two groups: 1) claim 25 and
dependent claims 27-31, 38, 40 and 41 to the extent that they
depend from claim 25, and 2) claim 26 and dependent claims 27-
40 and 42 to the extent that they depend from claim 26.
Although the rejections in the examiner’s answer are new
rejections based on the references applied in the final
rejection, appellants do not separately argue any claim in the
reply brief and do not present a separate argument as to the
rejection of dependent claims 32-37. Thus, we limit our
discussion to one claim in each of the above groups, i.e.,
claims 25 and 26. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2,
37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007