Appeal No. 96-0610 Application 08/257,449 walls and the underlying sidewall to form a flat and extremely compact assembly in the collapsed condition of the container as expressly suggested by Friedrich would not destroy Spangler’s container for its intended purpose, namely to store or transport articles. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the subject matter of claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Spangler and Friedrich if not from either reference alone. We will therefore sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 17. We will also sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2 and 4 through 7. Merely reiterating what each of these dependent claims recites or that these dependent claims are considered to patentable because claim 1 is considered to be patentable does not amount to an argument that these dependent claims are patentable separately of the claims from which they depend. In short, appellants have failed to argue the patentability of the dependent claims with any reasonable specificity. They therefore stand or fall with claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, -8-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007