Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
After careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 83 and 84
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we disagree with the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 through 37,
41 through 52, 54, 56 through 72 and 79 through 82 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset we note that Appellants state on page 3 of
the brief that claim 5 rises and falls with claim 4. Further,
it is noted that Appellants state that claims 1, 4, 83 and 84
do not rise 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