Appeal No. 1997-3503
Application No. 08/172,866
Claims 32, 33, 43, 44 and 50-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Asakura in view of (‘622) further in view of Forrest.
We affirm the examiner’s rejections.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. We make reference to
the examiner’s Answer5, and the examiner’s Supplemental Answer6 for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections. We further reference
appellants’ Brief7, and appellants’ Reply Brief8 for the appellants’ arguments in
favor of patentability. Appellants’ Supplemental Reply Brief9 was not entered
into the record10 and therefore was not considered by this merits panel.
CLAIM GROUPING:
Appellants’ Brief does not include a statement under 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
regarding the “[g]rouping of claims.” Accordingly, the claims stand or fall
together as set forth at pages 2-3 of the Answer. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
5 Paper No. 38, mailed February 8, 1996.
6 Paper No. 41, mailed July 23, 1996.
7 Paper No. 39, received September 27, 1995.
8 Paper No. 39, received April 8, 1996.
9 Paper No. 42, received September 23, 1996.
10 See Paper No. 43, mailed December 16, 1996.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007