Appeal No. 1999-1330
Application No. 08/527,373
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and affirm the
rejection of claims 1 - 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth herein.
Discussion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner's Answer of
February 17, 1998 (Paper No. 13) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellants' Appeal Brief filed November 26, 1997 (Paper No. 12)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Grouping of the claims
The appellants’ Appeal Brief at page 4, states that the claims do not stand or fall
together. The examiner at page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer, urges that the claims do
stand and fall together because appellants fail to explain why each claim is separately
patentable. Appellants have not further disputed the examiner’s position and since the
brief fails to separately address the patentability of the claims on appeal, the claims are
considered to stand and fall together. We have limited our consideration of the issues
raised by this appeal as they apply to claim 1 as representative of claims 1 - 11. (37
CFR 1.192 (c)(7) (1997)).
Claim Interpretation
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007