Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
Claims 1 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not
described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s),
at the time the application was filed, had possession of the now
claimed invention.
Claims 1 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bender in view of Pazdej.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
The appellants submit that “[c]laims 1-13 stand together with
respect to the §103(a) rejection under Bender taken with Pazdej,
and with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs. Claims 14-17 stand together with respect to te
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph” (Brief, Paper
No. 16, page 6). Thus, “the rejection of claims 1-13 stand or fall
together because appellant’s [sic, appellants’] brief does not
include a statement that this grouping of claims does not stand or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007