Appeal No. 97-2739
Application No. 08/210,757
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the
above rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants, we refer to pages 2 through 4 of the
examiner's answer, to pages 4 through 6 of the appellants' brief
and to the reply brief for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellants have chosen not
to argue the patentability of dependent claims 5 and 7 with any
reasonable specificity. Accordingly, these claims stand or fall
with the claims from which they depend. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We
note that 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) requires that the argument
specify the errors in the rejection including any specific
limitations in the rejected claims which are not described in the
prior art relied on. Merely including the dependent claims along
with arguments directed to a claim or claims from which they
depend is not sufficient.
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions
advanced by the appellants and by the examiner. Upon evaluation
of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007