Appeal No. 1999-0725
Application 08/476,475
admitted state of the prior art as shown in figure 6-14(c) of
Microelectronics, further in view of Melton.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 9) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 14) for a statement of the Examiner's
position, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 13) for Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellants state that the rejected claims do not stand or fall
together (Br6). Appellants' reasons why the claims are separately
patentable are that neither "'346 nor Noll either alone or in
combination with another reference either anticipate or make obvious
the inventions of [one of claims 2-26, wherein the claim recites
. . .]" (Br6-12). This does not constitute an argument why the
claims are separately patentable. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997)
("Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an
argument as to why the claims are separately patentable.").
Appellants only argue the limitations of claims 1 and 21 separately.
Thus, claims 1-20 and 22-26 will stand or fall together with claim 1
and claim 21 will stand or fall by itself.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007