Appeal No. 1997-0296
Application No. 08/378,086
Appellant submits at page 3 of the principal brief that
“[c]laims 83-121 are presented separately and should be
considered individually, consisting [sic, consistent] with the
separate arguments for patentability for each set forth below”.
However, the ARGUMENT section of appellant’s brief presents
substantive arguments only for claims 83, 85, 86, 105, 106, 92-94
and 112-114. Pages 9-15 of appellant’s principal brief set forth
nothing more than a recitation of the features of the referenced
claims along with the conclusory remark that the recited features
are neither disclosed or suggested by any of the cited
references. Accordingly, other than claims 85, 86, 105, 106,
92-94 and 112-114, the appealed claims stand or fall together
with claim 83. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Ex parte Ohsumi, 21 USPQ2d 1020,
1023 (Bd. of Pat. Appls. and Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR 1.192
c(7) and c(8).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007