Appeal No. 2002-0354 Page 3
Application No. 09/293,455
OPINION
At the outset, we recall 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)). Here, the appellant
stipulates, "[c]laims 1-4, 6 and 7 stand or fall together. Claims 8-11, 13 and 14 stand or
fall together. Claims 15-18, 20 and 21 stand or fall together." (Appeal Br. at 3.)
Despite the stipulation, he fails to argue the patentability of the claims separately.
Therefore, claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20, and 21 stand or fall with representative claim 1.
With this representation in mind, before addressing the positions of the examiner
and the appellant, we find that Wrobel alone would have suggested the limitations in
question. "Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007