Appeal No. 1999-1625
Application No. 08/792,468
First, we will consider the rejection of claims 13 through
23, 27 through 30 and 32 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collins and Gogulski. At the outset, we
note that Appellants have provided a statement, on page 4, lines
11-16 of the brief, that claims 13 through 23 stand and fall
together, claims 27, 30 and 32 through 34 stand and fall
together, claim 28 stands or falls alone, claim 29 stands or
falls alone, claims 35 and 36 stand or fall together, claims 24
through 26 stand and fall together, and claim 31 stands or falls
alone. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) (July 1, 1998) as amended at 62
Fed. Reg. 53196 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at the
time of Appellants' filing the brief, states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant contests
and which applies to a group of two or more claims, the
Board shall select a single claim from the group and
shall decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection
on the basis of that claim alone unless a statement is
included that the claims of the group do not stand or
fall together and, in the argument under paragraph
(c)(8) of this section, appellant explains why the
claims of the group are believed to be separately
patentable. Merely pointing out differences in what
the claims cover is not an argument as to why the
claims are separately patentable.
We further note that Appellants have argued claims 13 through 23
as a single group. See page 4, lines 18 and 19 of the brief. We
will, thereby, consider Appellants' claims 13 through 23 as
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007