Appeal No. 1997-4426
Application No. 08/515,767
single group. The rejection makes no reference to any of the
specific claims on appeal. In the brief, appellants have
indicated that each of the independent claims should stand or
fall separately [brief, page 7]. Appellants’ brief also
points to specific limitations in each of the independent
claims which have not been addressed by the examiner [id.,
pages 15-18]. The examiner, however, has found that the 10
separate independent claims would require 45 separate
arguments to meet the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)
[answer, pages 2-3]. Since there are not 45 separate
arguments in support of the separate patentability of the
claims, the examiner observes that all the claims should stand
or fall together as a single group.
In our view, appellants have satisfied the rule for
having the independent claims considered separately for
patentability. As long as appellants have pointed to
differences between specific claims, and have given an
acceptable reason why such differences render the claims
separately patentable, such claims will be considered
separately for patentability. Thus, we will consider the
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007