Appeal No. 1997-3635
Application No. 08/498,357
groupings of the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) (July 1,
1996) 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.
Although Appellant has provided a statement regarding the
grouping of the claims, Appellant has not in the arguments
section of the brief provided separate arguments for the
independent claims 1 and 14. We will, thereby, consider
Appellant’s claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 19 as
standing or falling together as a group and we will treat
claim 1 as the representative claim of that group.
Appellant on page 7 of the brief argues that Wong does
not preclude successive pump down cycles employing a single
sputtering system or separate sputtering systems. Appellant
adds that Wong therefore does not inherently disclose the
claimed exclusion of oxygen and its effect on the resistance
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007