Appeal No. 1997-0228
Application No. 08/328,534
July 19, 1995, paper 17, page 3; Office action of January 27,
1995, paper 14, page 4; Office action of September 29, 1993,
paper 6, pages 5-7.)
As a preliminary matter, we note the appellant’s statement
that “[c]laims 42, 44-60, 62 and 64-82 are grouped individually
and each is to be considered individually, consistent with the
separate arguments for patentability for each...” (Appeal brief,
p. 3). However, the appellant’s “separate arguments” (pp. 9-15)
merely consist of pointing out what is covered by each of claims
42, 44 through 60, 64 through 80 and reciting a conclusory
statement that the “aspect of the present invention is neither
disclosed nor suggested” by the prior art. No analysis of the
claim limitations vis-à-vis the actual teachings of the prior art
references is provided, much less an explanation as to why each
of claims 42, 44-60, 62 and 64-82 is separately patentable from
claim 81. Nevertheless, we will consider claims 45 and 51
separately from claim 81 in view of the substantive arguments
provided in the appeal brief at page 6. Accordingly, consistent
with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (1995), we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007