Appeal No. 2000-2091
Application 08/441,024
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the Examiner and Appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 25,
mailed February 16, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 24, filed January 3, 2000) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 27, filed April 17, 2000) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellant indicates that
claims 1 through 11, 15 and 16 stand or fall together and
claims 13 and 14 stand or fall together (brief, page 5).
However, Appellant has not, in the arguments section of the
brief, provided separate arguments for claims 13 and 14, as
required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 1999). Appellant
has merely pointed out the subject matter that claims 13 and
14 cover and relied on the same arguments made with respect to
the other claims. Therefore, for the § 103 rejection of
claims over Kobayashi, Agrawal and Baker we will consider
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007