Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
1 16.) The appellant also urges, in each instance, that no motive
2 has been provided for selecting the particular resin/curative.
3 Although the claims are each placed in a separate heading,
4 simply separating out each claim in a separate heading does not
5 mean that they have been “separately argued.” Meeting a formal
6 requirement by placing purported argument under a separately
7 lettered heading does not establish a separate argument within the
8 meaning of Board Rule 37. Separate argument must include a good
9 faith argument as to why the claims are separately patentable – a
10 statement which merely points out what a claim recites, as each of
11 these purported arguments do, will not be considered an argument
12 for separate patentability of the claim. 37 CFR § 41.73(c).
13 The appellant has simply cut and pasted the same argument for
14 each claim without substantively attempting to traverse the
15 examiner’s stated position. The appellant has done this 20 times,
16 covering multiple pages with repetition. This is unpersuasive,
17 wastes both the appellant’s money and the Board’s time, and does
18 nothing to advance the prosecution of the application.
19 A legitimate argument would assert and explain why, for
20 example, alkanolamines would not have been well-known as curative
21 agents for epoxy adhesives, or what it is about them that sets
22 them apart from standard amines. See Manuel of Patent Examining
23 Procedure (MPEP) ¶ 2144.03C. (“To adequately traverse such a
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007