Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
Rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 15 and 18.
Appellant states on page 12 of the brief:
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and adds a limitation that the auxiliary
burner unit comprises a burner housing wherein the auxiliary burner is
housed. The total combination of claim 2, is not taught, described or
suggested by Reynolds ‘853 and Harneit ‘272, considered either
separately or in combination.
Appellant makes similar statements regarding claims 3, 8, 11, 15 and 18.
The rules in effect at the time the brief was filed specifically address the
weight to be given to such statements and allegations presented by appellant.
See 37 CFR § 41.37 (c) (1) (vii) (2005, which became effective September 13,
2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (Aug 12, 2004))):
A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.
Appellant has not discussed why the evidence would support a holding that
claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 15 and 18 are patentable apart from claim 1. Therefore, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 15 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as standing or falling with the patentability of claim 1.
Further, with respect to claims 2, 8, and 15, the examiner has identified
Reynolds' item A as the claimed auxiliary burner housing with the auxiliary burner
housed therein. With respect to claim 3 the examiner has found that the auxiliary
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007