Appeal No. 2000-0122
Application No. 08/309,925
§ 1.142(b); Brief, page 2; and the Answer, page 2.1 We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
reaction assembly which comprises a support with a first and second
surface, where fluid is capable of being transported from the first
to the second surface in a direction substantially normal to the
first surface (Brief, page 3). The assembly also comprises a
collection plate adjacent to the second surface, which has a
plurality of collection wells for receiving the transported fluid
(id.). Appellants state that it is not their intention that the
claims stand or fall together (Brief, page 5). However, appellants
fail to present any specific, substantive reasons for the separate
patentability of any individual claim (Brief, pages 5-9). Merely
reiterating the limitations of each dependent claim is not
sufficient reasoning. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(8)(1997).
Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR
1The examiner states that claims 52 and 53 have also been
withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected
invention (Answer, page 2), although the final rejection dated
July 1, 1996, Paper No. 11, and the Brief (page 2) do not state
that these claims were withdrawn from consideration. Since
appellants have not traversed the examiner’s statement in the
Answer (see the Reply Brief in its entirety), for purposes of
this appeal we will only consider the claims on appeal as claims
43, 44, 46-51, and 54-59. See the action dated Sep. 27, 1995,
Paper No. 7, pages 2-4.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007