Appeal No. 1999-0194
Application No. 08/436,626
(5) claim 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over the activity involved in the construction
and use of the Schuylkill bridge.
Claim Grouping
For rejection (1), claim 27 is argued apart from claims
20-26. See page 5 of appellant’s brief3 and the “ARGUMENT”
section of the brief, under appellant’s Issue 1. As to
rejections (2) and (3) (appellant’s Issues 2 and 3), the
arguments in the brief and reply brief are not directed with
any reasonable degree of specificity toward any particular
claim. Therefore, the claims grouped in these rejections will
stand or fall together in accordance with the success or
failure of the aforementioned arguments. See 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7); In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 292 n.3, 30 USPQ2d
1455, 1456 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 1309-10, 177 USPQ 170,
172 (CCPA 1973).
3All references to appellant’s brief in this decision are
to the amended brief submitted April 21, 1997 (Paper No. 18).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007