Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 10
Application No. 08/812,222
II. Rejection over Buzak in view of Kitajima
At the outset, we note that 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) (citing In re
Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). When the
patentability of dependent claims is not argued separately,
moreover, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which
they depend.
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir.
1986)(citing In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3
(Fed. Cir. 1983) and Burckel, 592 F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at
70.) Here, the appellant indicates, “[c]laims 1, 3 ... stand
together.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) Therefore, the claims stand or
fall together in a group. We select claim 1 to represent the
group.
The appellant argues, "[t]here is no teaching or
suggestion in either Buzak et al. or Kitajima et al. that a
group of pixel elements representing different colors is
associated with a common data electrode ...." (Appeal Br. at
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007