Appeal No. 1998-1278
Application No. 08/603,186
dated October 21, 1996, claims 1 and 10 were amended and claims
3 and 11 were cancelled. See the Brief, page 2.
According to appellants (Brief, page 4), the claims on
appeal do not stand or fall together. However, the appellants
have presented no substantive arguments as to why the subject
matter recited in the dependent claims on appeal is separately
patentable over the applied prior art references consistent with
the requirements set forth in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(1997). See
the Brief and the Reply Brief in their entirety. A mere
reiteration of various limitations in the dependent appealed
claims at pages 4 and 5 of the Brief does not satisfy such
requirements. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(1997). Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, we only need to consider claims 1 and 10
in determining the propriety of the examiner’s rejections
consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1999). Claims 1 and 10 are
reproduced below:1
1. A process for removing carbon dioxide from a
combustion gas which comprises:
in an apparatus made from carbon steel, bringing a
combustion gas which contains oxygen gas and carbon dioxide
into contact with a carbon dioxide absorbent solution, at
the atmospheric pressure,
1 A correct version of claim 1 appears in the Amendment
dated Feb. 21, 1997, Paper No. 35.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007