Appeal No. 1998-0212 Page 16
Reissue Application No. 07/837,588
inventions; he required restriction between two corresponding
groups of the claims. (‘176 Application, Paper No. 10 at 2.)
The appellant acquiesced to the restriction requirement.
Specifically, he elected to prosecute the claims of the first
group without traversal, (‘176 Application, Paper No. 11 at 2,
Paper No. 12 at 2), and authorized the examiner to cancel the
nonelected claims. (‘176 Application, Paper No. 19, Paper No.
20 at 3.) We will not delve into the merits of the
restriction requirement. Instead, we will decide whether
claims 77-85,
87, 88, 90-107, 109, 110, and 112-120 are substantially
identical to nonelected claims 35-49.
As mentioned regarding the grouping of the claims, claims
77-85, 87, 88, 90-107, 109, 110, and 112-120 stand or fall
together as a group. Following 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)(1997),
we select claim 85 to represent the group. Claim 85 is
reproduced below, with the changes from nonelected claims 36
and 37 marked. Additions are marked with underlining;
deletions, with brackets.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007