Appeal No. 2004-0572
Application 09/849,315
individually consider the claims which have been separately
grouped and argued by the appellant. See Ex parte Shier,
21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991)(In order to
obtain separate consideration of commonly rejected claims, an
appellant must state that the claims do not stand or fall
together and must present arguments why the claims are separately
patentable). Also see 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(8) (2002).
Rather than reiterate the respective positions
advocated by the appellant and by the examiner concerning this
rejection, we refer to the Brief (i.e., the Brief filed March 27,
2003) and to the Answer for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the
above-noted rejection.
In the examiner’s view, appealed independent claim 1
distinguishes from Miller by requiring the step of “cutting
reclaimed tire carcasses into sets of substantially flat storable
sections of tire tread strips excluding sidewalls.” Although
patentee’s method includes a similar step wherein reclaimed tire
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007