Appeal No. 2006-1061
Application No. 09/505,713
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants concerning the above-noted rejections, we
refer to the Answer and the Brief.
We initially note that Appellants assert that for purposes of appeal
the claims are grouped as follows: (I) 38-45 and 47-50, (II) 46, (III) 51, (IV) 52
and 53. We will consider these groups of claims separately to the extent
that Appellants have argued them. Any claims not properly separately
argued will stand or fall with the selected representative claim. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003)(now 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), effective Sept. 13, 2004;
69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sept. 7,
2004)); and In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
OPINION
Appellants’ invention relates to a sterilizible composite film containing a
barrier layer that is impermeable to water vapor and gases comprising a metal
2. The Examiner as rebuttal evidence to Appellants’ arguments cited this
reference. The reference has not been included in the statement of the rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007