Appeal No. 2001-0865 Application 08/998,781 Wakabayashi et al. (Wakabayashi) 5,537,517 July 16, 1996 Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. � 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Saruwatari. Claims 6, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. � 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Saruwatari as applied in the rejection of claim 5, further in view of Wakabayashi. We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 11) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 18) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 21) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst. OPINION Grouping of claims It is argued that none of the claims stand or fall together. However, only claims which are separately argued are entitled to be treated separately. See 37 CFR � 1.192(c)(8)(iii) (1998) (argument section of brief must specify the errors in the rejection and the specific limitations in the claims which are not described in the prior art). Appellant argues (Br8-11) that Zimmerman fails to teach or suggest at least the following three features set forth in independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 13 (the limitations of claim 1 are quoted as representative): (1) "performing a print - 3 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007