Appeal No. 1998-2836
Application No. 08/453,211
with respect to this claim. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Rejection (2)
We note that the appellants have not argued the merits of
the rejection of claims 8, 9 and 11 apart from the rejection
of claim 1, or the rejection of claim 10 apart from the
rejection of claim 3. Therefore, claims 8, 9 and 11 stand or
fall with claim 1 and claim 10 stands or falls with claim 3.
See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987) and the appellants’ grouping of claims at
page 5 of the main brief. Accordingly, we will also sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 through
11 as unpatentable over Ito in view of Oonishi, and further in
view of Sumita.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the examiner’s decision to reject claims 1
through 3, 8 through 11, 16, 17 and 19 through 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The examiner’s decision to
reject claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
22
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007