Ex Parte TIEDEMANN et al - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2000-1546                                                        
          Application 08/588,149                                                      


          argued.  Since the examiner is not permitted to respond to                  
          arguments made in a reply brief, we do not have the position of             
          the examiner with regard to the separate patentability of claims            
          16 and 36 as argued by appellants.  Therefore, we will not accept           
          a grouping of claims first proposed in a reply brief because the            
          examiner has not had an opportunity to properly respond to such             
          arguments.  Permitting a new group of claims to be argued in a              
          reply brief would simply encourage an appellant to withhold                 
          arguments until after the examiner’s answer has been received. We           
          do not intend to encourage such a practice.  Therefore, for the             
          purpose of making the decision in this appeal, all claims will              
          stand or fall together in a single group as indicated in the main           
          brief.  Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137             
          (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1,            
          3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Accordingly, we will consider the rejection            
          against independent claim 16 as representative of all the claims            
          on appeal.                                                                  
          Representative independent claim 16 stands rejected under                   














Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007