Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1-30. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellant has nominally indicated that the claims on
appeal do not stand or fall together [brief, page 4].
However, appellant has made no separate arguments with respect
to the claims within each separate rejection. The extent of
appellant’s arguments is to simply repeat what is recited in
each of the claims. Simply pointing out what a claim requires
with no attempt to point out how the claims patentably
distinguish 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 claims
within each rejection, all contested claims within each
rejection will stand or fall together. 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 a single
claim from each ground of rejection as representative of all
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007