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 underPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007