Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 18
Application No. 08/400,637
skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention
without undue experimentation. For the same reasons, we are
not persuaded that claims 27-30 are inoperative to lack
utility. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 27-30
as lacking utility. We proceed to the anticipation rejection.
IV. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 31-36
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
We also note that, in general, claims that are not argued
separately stand or fall together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When the
patentability of dependent claims in particular is not argued
separately, the claims stand or fall with the claims from
which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007