Appeal No. 1998-1870
Application No. 08/447,063
In the main brief (page 4), appellants indicate that the
claims do not stand or fall for the reasons given in the argument
section. This statement is followed by the additional commentary
in the reply brief (page 5). However, only claims 34, 49, and 50
are specifically referenced and addressed (main brief, page 11).
Apart from these dependent claims, the other dependent claims are
not each specifically referenced and addressed relative to the
applied prior art teachings. Thus, as to these other dependent
claims, appellants have simply not complied with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) in explaining why each is separately patentable.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied teachings, 2 3
2A copy of claim 40, in error, appears in the APPENDIX to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007