Appeal No. 2000-0038
Application 08/751,369
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall in the
following groups: A) claims 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26 and 40;
B) claim 12; C) claims 21, 31 and 32; D) claims 23 and 24;
E) claim 27; F) claim 28; G) claims 29 and 30; H) claims 33
and 34; (I) claim 36; J) claims 37 and 38; K) claim 39;
L) claim 41; and M) claims 43 and 44 (brief, pages 8-9). The
appellants, however, do not provide a substantive argument for
the separate patentability of claim 12. This claim, therefore,
stands or falls with claim 10 from which it depends. Thus, we
limit our discussion to one claim in each group except group B,
i.e., respectively, claims 10, 31, 23, 27, 28, 29, 33, 36, 37,
39, 41 and 43. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37
USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Burckel, 592 F.2d
1175, 1178-9, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Herbert, 461
F.2d 1390, 1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260 (CCPA 1972); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim 10
Heming discloses a process for producing an optical
waveguide (col. 1, lines 9-11). The waveguide substrate can be a
synthetic resin or a material having a “high organic proportion”,
i.e., more than 0.1 hydrocarbon group per metallic atom of an
oxide (col. 3, lines 24-26 and 36-43). The substrate preferably
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007