Appeal No. 1998-1950
Application No. 08/584,517
appropriate, the specific limitations in the rejected claims which are not described in the
prior art relied on in the rejection.”).
Appellants submit that the argument offered with respect to claim 18 is equally
applicable to pointing out the differences between the system of claim 26 and the
disclosure of Frey (see Reply Brief, page 5). Appellants may be relying on the arguments
presented with respect to claim 18, but appellants have not shown that the section 103
rejection of (method) claim 18 is in error. Nor have appellants shown that the rejection of
(system) claim 26 is erroneous. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 26.
Since appellants have not submitted arguments for separate patentability of any
dependent claims, we sustain the rejection of claims 18, 19, and 26-28. See 37 C.F.R. §
1.192(c)(7).
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 18, 19, and 26-28 is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007