Appeal No. 2001-2688
Application No. 08/735,619
wherein the selection is assigned to a point on the logical
coordinates in accordance with its classifications. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 38 through
55 for also the same reasons as above.
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page 3 of
the brief that the claims do not stand or fall together.
However, we note that for claims 24 through 37 and 56 through 63,
Appellants have only argued the independent claims 24, 28, 32, 56
and 59 in the brief and reply brief. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (July
1, 1999) 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 [A]ppellant 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, [A]ppellant 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 will, thereby, consider Appellants' claims 24, 28, 32, 56 and
59 separately with the dependent claims as standing or falling
together with their corresponding independent claim.
1212
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007