Appeal No. 1999-2795
Application 09/046,111
an imprinter or perforator, or in a reader (col. 1, lines 43-49).
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 5) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 9) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the brief (Paper No. 7) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the reply brief (Paper No. 10)
for a statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellant's grouping of claims states that each claim
is discussed separately (Br4). While it would be best if
Appellant used the magic phrase that "the claims do not
stand or fall together," 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1999), to
comply with the literal language of the rule, it is clear
that Appellant's statement is equivalent to saying the
claims do not stand or fall together. The claims are argued
separately (Br4-5), although Appellant's arguments as to
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007