Appeal No. 1998-1862
Application No. 08/644,622
also comprises an antioxidant which is a blend of p-phenylene
diamine and zinc salt dirivatives of mercaptobenzimidazole.
Appellant submits at pages 6 and 7 of the principal brief
that the appealed claims should be considered separately and
patentably distinct. However, the Arugment section of
appellant’s brief fails to set forth an argument that is
reasonably specific to any particular claim on appeal. For
instance, the arguments appearing on pages 11 and 12 of the
principal brief regarding dependent claims 4-7, 9-12 and 13
are tantamount to a mere re-recitation of the features of the
claim, in addition to including the statement that “a claim in
dependent form shall be construed to incorporate all the
limitations of the claim to which it refers”. Accordingly,
all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987); Ex parte Ohsumi, 21 USPQ2d 1020, 1023 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR 1.192 (c)(7) and (c)(8).
Appealed claims 1, 4-7, 9-13 and 16-19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff in view
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007