Appeal No. 2005-0258 Page 2
Application No. 09/768,877
the rejection under the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. As we understand appellants’ assertions (Request, page 3),
appellants’ Brief presented two separate arguments against the rejection under
the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The first,
(presented in the Brief at page 13) provided arguments for claims 19 and 53,
while the second (presented in the Brief at pages 14-17) provided arguments for
claims 18-21, 49-51, 53-64, 115 and 116.
Appellants cite (see Request, page 3), but do not contest the Board’s
reliance on 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002) which states:
For each ground of rejection which appellant 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
group for 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, appellant 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.
For clarity we will address each requirement of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002)
separately.
I. For each groups of rejection:
The following four grounds of rejection were identified at page 3 of the
Decision:
I. Claims 18-21, 49-51, 53-64, 115 and 116 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in the
recitation of the term “calpain 10.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007