Appeal No. 1997-3119
Application No. 08/216,221
the argument presented by appellant appears in the office
action dated June 28, 1995 and the answer (Paper Nos. 5 and
16), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 15 and 17).
Appellant indicates (main brief, page 5) that claims 1, 3
through 6, 8, 12, and 13 do not stand or fall together, but
fails to individually refer to, address, and distinguish in
the briefs the content of each claim relative to the applied
prior art; 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(iv). Thus, we
shall focus exclusively upon the subject matter of independent
claims 1 and 8, infra, with the dependent claims standing or
falling with their respective parent claims.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the2
2In our evaluation of the applied references, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each patent for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007