Appeal No. 1998-2451
Application No. 08/317,826
The rejections at issue are as follows:
I. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-16, 29-35, and 48-53 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph (written
descriptions).2
II. Claims 2, 6, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 112,
first paragraph (written description).
On page 5 of the Brief, appellants state that the claims do
not stand or fall together, and group the claims with each
rejection. The examiner agrees with the grouping. Hence, we
consider claims 1 and 2 (the broadest claims of each respective
grouping). 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1997).
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by
the appellants in the brief and reply brief, and by the examiner in
the answer. Our decision based on this review is set forth below.
2 We observe that the examiner’s rejection on page 3 of the answer indicates
that claims 20, 42, and 45 are included in this rejection. However, as
indicated supra, claims 20, 42, and 45 have been canceled. Also, the examiner
did not include claims 48-53 in this rejection, which contradicts the position
taken in the office action of Paper No. 33. We therefore presume that claims
1, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-16, 29-35, and 48-53 stand rejected in this rejection. This
coincides with PTOL-326 form of Paper No. 33.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007