Appeal No. 2005-1087
Application No. 10/175,587
11. A composition comprising: a plurality of
microcapsules each including a polymerized, optionally
hardened, micelle shell encapsulating a liquid droplet and a
particle component.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Chopra et al. (Chopra ‘870) 6,488,870 Dec. 3, 2002
Chopra et al. (Chopra ‘025) 6,492,025 Dec. 10, 2002
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by either Chopra ‘870 or Chopra
‘025.1
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning these rejections.
OPINION
We will sustain each of these rejections.
1
1On page 3 of the brief the appellants state that “[t]he claims
do not stand or fall together.” However, in the “ARGUMENT”
section of the brief, none of the here rejected claims have been
separately argued. It is well settled that, in order to obtain
separate consideration of commonly rejected claims, the claims
must be not only separately grouped but also separately argued.
See former regulation 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003); compare current
regulation 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004). Also see In
re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) and Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1991). Under these circumstances, our disposition of
the above noted rejections will be based on representative claim
11 which is the sole independent claim on appeal.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007