Appeal No. 2000-1142 Page 3
Application No. 08/753,230
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner entered the following rejections:
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 to 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Brimberg, Wolf and Pears. (Answer, p. 3).
Appellants have indicated that claim 8 should stand or fall separately from the
remaining claims.2 (Brief, p. 3). Consistent with this indication, Appellants have made
no separate arguments with respect to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, claim 8 will
stand or fall separately from claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 13 and we will limit our consideration
to claims 1 and 8. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
OPINION
We refer to the Brief and to the Examiner’s Answer for a complete exposition of
the opposing viewpoints expressed by the Appellants and by the Examiner concerning the
above noted rejections.
We find the claimed invention is directed to a method for manufacturing an
accordion filter insert. The steps of the method include (1) providing a mold that has a
2 Appellants stated that claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 15 should stand or fall together. However, the
only claims on appeal are claims 1 to 13. Therefore, we will consider claim 8 separately from claims 1 to
7 and 9 to 13.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007