Appeal No. 2001-1973 Page 4
Application No. 08/734,184
“[m]erely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as
to why the claims are separately patentable.” Appellants make no effort to
explain how the different limitations of the claims establish separate issues of
patentability.
Since Appellants have not complied with the requirement of Rule 192(c)(7)
to explain why the claims are believed to be separately patentable, all of the
claims subject to each ground of rejection will stand or fall together.
In particular, the claims rejected for anticipation will stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for “continuous culturing of microalgae.”
The claimed method comprises six steps: (1) providing an open container, (2)
providing an aqueous culture medium comprising a seed stock of microalgae, (3)
exposing the culture medium to light, (4) maintaining the pH of the culture
medium at a fixed level, (5) harvesting a portion of the medium after a
predetermined period, and (6) adding replacement seed stock medium to the
unharvested portion of the medium. The claim also states that the step of initially
providing the culture medium “further comprises the step of establishing
concentrations of constituent elements in the aqueous medium for unialgal
harvesting for promoting optimum growth rates of the microalgae.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007