Appeal No. 2003-1918
Application No. 08/945,722
The subject matter on appeal relates to a starch having an
amylose content of at least 35%. Further details of this
appealed subject matter are set forth in independent claims 1 and
64, a copy of which taken from the appellants’ brief is appended
to this decision.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Elizer 3,887,752 Jun. 3, 1975
Whetzel et al. (Whetzel) 3,888,739 Jun. 10, 1975
Jewell et al. (Jewell) 5,344,663 Sep. 6, 1994
Claims 1-14, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 64 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elizer, and claims 1-
14, 17, 18, 20-22 and 64 (i.e., all appealed claims) are
correspondingly rejected as being unpatentable over Elizer in
view of Jewell.2
failure should be rectified upon return of the subject
application to the jurisdiction of the Examining Corps.
2 On page 4 of the brief under the heading “Grouping of
Claims,” the appellants state that they “consider each claim
under appeal herein to be separately patentable.” However,
neither the brief nor the reply brief contains any argument
regarding features recited in the dependent claims on appeal. We
here remind the appellants that, in order to obtain separate
consideration of commonly rejected claims, the appellants must
state that the claims do not stand or fall together and must
present arguments why the commonly rejected claims are separately
patentable. Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1991). Because the appellants have presented no arguments
as to why their dependent claims are separately patentable, these
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007