Appeal No. 1998-0870
Application No. 08/325,015
In the case before us, Appellants failed to positively
indicate that the claims do not stand or fall together.
Instead, appellants stated as follows: “Claims 1-9 are
patentable for similar reasons and stand together” (Brief,
page 5). The examiner interpreted appellants’ statement to
mean that “claims 1-9 stand or fall together” (Answer, page
3). Although appellants had ample opportunity to dispute the
examiner’s interpretation, they did not do so. Therefore,2
consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8), we select
claim 1 from the group of claims and decide this appeal as to
the ground of rejection on the basis of claim 1 alone.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A display device comprising a display screen
having an antistatic, light-absorbing coating which
contains latex particles of electrconductive [sic]
polypyrrole, characterized in that the coating
predominately consists of a homogeneous mixture of
said latex particles of polypyrrole, a steric
stabilizer for said particles of polypyrrole and
antimony-doped tin oxide particles.3
2Cf. Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1019 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
3We note that the copy of claim 1 in the appendix to the Brief does not
correspond identically to claim 1 presented in the Amendment filed September
10, 1996. Claim 1 reproduced here corresponds to amended claim 1 presented in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007