Appeal No. 2001-1973 Page 3
Application No. 08/734,184
Chaetoceros sp. microalgae is that undesirable species contaminate and
outcompete Chaetoceros sp. microalgae in culture vessels and outdoor algal
systems.” Id., page 3. The specification discloses “an open, continuous
microalgae culture system that optimizes culture conditions for microalgae, such
as Chaetoceros sp. marine microalgae, in a cost effective manner.” Id., page 4.
The disclosed system improves on previous culture methods by “establish[ing]
optimal culture conditions for Chaetoceros sp. microalgae and provid[ing] for the
outdoor culturing of the microalgae. No water treatment systems are needed as
the Chaetoceros sp. microalgae outcompetes other species of microalgae in the
culture.” Id., pages 4-5.
Discussion
1. Claim Grouping
Appellants state that “[t]he claims do not stand or fall together.” Appeal
Brief, page 6. Under the applicable rule, however, Appellants must do more than
simply assert the separate patentability of the claims. See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7):
The claims subject to each ground of rejection will stand or fall together “unless a
statement is included that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together
and, in the argument . . ., appellant explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable.”
Appellants’ Brief presents no argument to support the asserted separate
patentability of the claims over the prior art. Instead, Appellants simply repeat
the limitations of each claim subject to each rejection. See the Appeal Brief,
pages 7-8, 9-10, and 15-16. However, Rule 192(c)(7) expressly states that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007