Appeal No. 1997-4283
Application No. 08/342,695
We have carefully considered the arguments raised by
appellants in the Request for Rehearing. However, we are not
persuaded by those arguments to alter our earlier decision
entered May 29, 2001.
Initially, we note that appellants argue that we
overlooked dependent claims 2 and 3 which were separately
argued at page 8, lines 3-10, of the Brief. See the Request
for Rehearing, page 2. However, we are not persuaded that
those claims are separately patentable over the applied prior
art. As indicated in our earlier decision, appellants have
not timely challenged the examiner’s determination that
“[a]ppellants do not provide reasons why each appealed claim
is considered separately patentable [over the applied prior
art]." See, e.g., Reply Brief. Thus, we determine that the
patentability of those claims stands or falls together with
the patentability of claim 13.
Even were we to consider those claims separately, our
conclusion will not be changed. As acknowledged by appellants
(Brief, page 5), the applied prior art references, namely
Kurofuchi and Yonezawa, teach employing less than or equal to
5000 ppm strontium or less than or equal to 150 ppm strontium,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007