Appeal No. 96-0310
Application 08/084,502
level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 1-18. Accordingly, we
affirm.
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims do
not stand or fall together [brief, page 2], but they have not
specifically argued the limitations of each of the claims.
The extent of appellants' arguments appears at the bottom of
page 3 of the brief wherein it is baldly asserted that the
prior art does not teach or suggest features of the claims
with no analysis or discussion of obviousness whatsoever.
Simply pointing out what a claim requires with no attempt to
point out how the claims patentably distinguish over the prior
art does not amount to a separate argument for patentability.
See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987). At the time appellants' brief was filed, 37
CFR § 1.192(6)(iv) required that "the argument shall specify
the errors in the rejection and, if appropriate, the specific
limitations in the rejected claims which are not described in
the prior art relied on in the rejection, and shall explain
how such limitations render the claimed subject matter
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007