Appeal No. 1998-0299
Application No. 08/301,523
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner entered the following rejections:
Claims 15 to 17, 19 to 21, 23, 25 to 29 and 31 and 20-22 are rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Oberle. (Answer, p. 4).
Claims 18, 22 and 32 to 34 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Oberle. (Answer, p. 7).
OPINION2
Appellants have not indicated a grouping of the claims with regard to the new
rejections entered in the Examiner’s Answer. While Appellants request that claim 33
be taken as representative, Appellants have not provided an explanation why claim
33 is representative of all the rejected claims on appeal. (Reply Brief, p. 3). We will
consider the claims separately only to the extent that separate arguments are of
record in this appeal. Any claim not specifically argued will stand or fall with its
base claim. Only claim 31 is argued with sufficient specificity to stand apart. Note
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
2 We note Appellants consider that the Examiner has inserted a host of new rejections in
the Answer. (Reply Brief, pp. 1-2). Questions regarding actions taken by the Examiner, such as
the insertion of a new ground of rejection, is petitionable under 37 CFR § 1.181 to the
Commissioner. Since Appellants has failed to timely file a petition, we will address the rejections
as presented in the Examiner’s Answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007