Appeal No. 1999-0848
Application No. 08/634,310
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 14) and
Answer (Paper No. 15) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in
support of the rejection and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
As correctly indicated by the Examiner (Answer, page 2),
Appellant’s Brief does not contain a statement that the rejected
claims do not stand or fall together. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Appellant’s arguments in the Brief likewise do not assert
reasons for separate patentability of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, all of the claims before us will stand or fall
together and we will only consider the rejection against claim
8, the sole independent appealed claim, as representative of all
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007