Appeal No. 1999-0918
Application No. 08/399,690
“separately patentable over the prior art, which does not teach this limitation.”
(Brief, p. 8). Page 14 recites nothing more than a recitation of the features of the
referenced claims along with the conclusory remark that the cited prior art does not
teach or suggest the features of the claims. “Merely pointing out differences in what
the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are separately patentable.”
37 CFR §§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997). Accordingly, we select claim 1 from the group of
rejected claims and decide this appeal as to the Examiner's ground of rejection on
the basis of this claim alone. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Ex parte Ohsumi, 21 USPQ2d 1020, 1023
(Bd. of Pat. Appls. and Int. 1991).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection is well founded. Our reasons for this determination
follow.
Akkapeddi discloses styrenic polymers which are reacted with an
ethylenically unsaturated grafting agent. Akkapeddi further discloses that rubbery
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007