Appeal No. 95-1296
Application 08/073,257
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 10, 12-16, 21-26 and 29-33. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims on
appeal do not stand or fall together [brief, page 4]. However,
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any of
the dependent claims. Since appellants have failed to
appropriately argue the separate patentability of the dependent
claims, the dependent claims will stand or fall with the
independent claim from which they depend. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, we will only consider the rejection against
independent claims 10, 21 and 29 as representative of all the
claims on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007