Appeal No. 96-1396
Application 08/176,335
bar icon, or by selecting icon 222 which is not independent of
the menu bar icon. Thus, the independent claims recite nothing
more than that the actionable objects can be operated without
using the menu bar icon. We agree with appellants that the
artisan having considered the specification of this
application would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope of
the invention recited in claims 1-15. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 1-15 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Fleming and
Hoki. Appellants have indicated that the claims on appeal
stand or fall together for purposes of this rejection [brief,
page 7]. Consistent with this indication appellants have made
no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on
appeal. Consequently, all contested claims stand or fall
together. 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 claim 1 as representative of
all the claims on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007