Appeal No. 94-3371
Application 07/986,878
applied prior art are merely conclusions “without any substantial
reasons given” (Answer, page 2). 4
We note that appellants have not presented any arguments for
separate patentability for claims 2-7 and 9. In the absence of
such arguments, claims 2-7 and 9 are considered to stand or fall
together with independent claim 73. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1571, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Wood, 582
F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Schier, 21
USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). As for claims 10-
17, these claims will stand or fall separately to the extent that
separate patentability of these claims has been argued by
appellant in accordance with 37 CFR §§ 1.192(c)(5) and
(c)(6)(iv)(1993).
We have carefully considered the respective positions ad-
vanced by both appellants and the examiner for patentability of
the appealed claims. In so doing, we will affirm the rejection
for obviousness of claims 2-7, 9 and 73 over Nadler, but reverse
the rejection for obviousness with respect to claims 10-17. We
further find ourselves in agreement with appellants with regard
4While the examiner contends that the appellants’ arguments for separate
patentability of claims 10-17 are not substantial, on page 7 of the Answer, it
is noted that the examiner did respond to appellants’ arguments.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007