Appeal No. 96-0019
Application 08/150,742
simply indicate what is recited in the dependent claims without
providing any analysis as to why the added limitations patentably
distinguish over the applied prior art. Simply pointing out what
a claim requires with no attempt to point out how the claim
patentably distinguishes over the prior art does not amount to a
separate argument for patentability. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Since
appellant has failed to appropriately argue the separate
patentability of the dependent claims, these claims will stand or
fall with the independent claim from which they depend. See In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Accordingly, we will consider the rejection against claim
24 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
With respect to independent claim 24, the examiner cites
Fukino as a teaching in the same art to solve the same problem
disclosed by appellant. Specifically, Fukino notes that power
transistors of the type disclosed and claimed by appellant
require large emitter and collector junction areas, and the prior
art has addressed this problem by dividing the emitter junction
into a plurality of divided active areas [column 1, lines 19-27].
Fukino also notes that when these emitter areas are spaced
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007