Appeal No. 2001-1231
Application No. 08/976,371
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
carbon black and a rubber composition including this carbon
black, where the carbon black results in improved treadwear and
tear resistance (Brief, pages 2-3).2 Appellants state that the
claims do not stand or fall together but should be grouped as in
each rejection (Brief, page 5). Appellants do not set forth any
specific, substantive reasons for the separate patentability of
any individual claim (see the Brief in its entirety). Accord-
ingly, pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997),
we select one claim (i.e., independent claim 7) from each
grouping and decide the grounds of rejection in this appeal on
the basis of claim 7 alone. Of course, we consider claim 14 in
the rejection under the first paragraph of section 112 and claim
27 in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) separately since
each of these claims is the only claim in a rejection.
Illustrative independent claim 7 is reproduced below:
7. A carbon black, suitable for use in the fabrication
of tire tread rubber, comprising:
a. a carbon black particle size of between about
16.0 nm and about 19.0 nm;
2 All reference to the Brief is to the Second Substitute Brief dated
Sep. 19, 2000, Paper No. 28.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007