Ex parte DEWEY - Page 13

          Appeal No. 1998-0488                                                        
          Application No. 08/496,234                                                  

          the rejection of claims 16-20 for at least the reasons                      
          discussed above with respect to claim 9.                                    
          We note that appellant has argued several of the                            
          dependent claims separately.  Since we have not sustained the               
          rejection of any of the independent claims, we need not                     
          discuss in detail the limitations of these dependent claims.                
          We do observe, however, that the examiner has essentially                   
          ignored these limitations of the dependent claims in                        
          formulating the rejection and in responding to appellant’s                  
          arguments.  Therefore, we agree with appellant that these                   
          claims would have been separately patentable even if we had                 
          agreed with the examiner’s rejection of the independent                     


Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007