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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007