Appeal No.2001-1865
Application 09/068,476
On pages 15 and 16 of the brief, appellants argue that
Yamashita fails to disclose a method directed at producing ionic
alkaline metal silicate granules such as set forth in Groups I
and II of the appealed claims. On page 16 of the brief,
appellants argue that the present invention produces ionic
detergent granules such as claimed in Groups III and IV of the
appealed claims. However, not all of the claims in these
groupings have been individually argued by appellants with
reasonable specificity in the brief and reply brief. We know
that in order to obtain separate consideration by the Board of
individual claims which are rejected together, an appellant must
state that the claims do not stand or fall together and must
produce arguments why claims subject to the same rejection are
separately patentable. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)
(1998) as well as Ex parte Shier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018-19 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1991). In light of the appellants' failure to
follow our regulation and precedent, we must decline to
separately consider each of these claim groupings. Instead, as
a practical matter, we must limit our assessment of the
rejection before us to only those claims which the appellants
have contested with reasonable specificity. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and
In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Hence, we consider claims 1 and 32. It is appropriate to
emphasize however that our formulation of the opinion which
follows has included a full consideration of all the argument
and evidence specifically advanced by the appellants on this
appeal. Also, as noted supra, claims 4 and 40 have been
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007