Appeal No. 98-1287
Application 08/359,706
McClenahan et al. (McClenahan) 5,489,983 Feb. 6, 1996
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph was present in the Final Rejection
mailed October 17, 1996 (Paper 7). The examiner has withdrawn the rejection due to entry of the
amendment after Final Rejection, submitted April 16, 1997 (Paper 10). (See Answer at 4.)
The following rejection is thus on appeal before us: Claims 1-10 are rejected for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wiklund, Wells, McClenahan, and Shoemaker.
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
Appellants assert that there are two groups of Claims: Group I (Claims 1 and 3-7); and Group
II (Claims 2 and 8-10). (Brief at 6.) The examiner determines that due to dependencies, and multiple
dependencies, Group I should include Claims 1, 3/1, and 7/1, and that Group II should include Claims
2, 3/2, 4, 5, 6, 7/2, 8, 9, and 10. (Answer at 3.)
Appellants submit separate arguments for Claim 1 (pages 6 through 11 of the Brief) and Claim
2 (pages 11 through 14). However, the claim dependencies are as noted by the examiner.
Thus, Claims 3/1 and 7/1 stand or fall with Claim 1, and Claims 3/2, 4, 5, 6, 7/2, 8, 9, and 10 stand or
fall with Claim 2. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007