Appeal No. 97-4185 Page 11
Application No. 08/602,274
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 has not been separately argued by the
appellants. Accordingly, claim 2 will be treated as falling
with parent claim 1. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus,
it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claim 2
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is also affirmed.
Claims 10 and 11
The appellants have grouped claims 10 and 11 as standing
or falling with claim 1. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR2
§ 1.192(c)(7), claims 10 and 11 fall with claim 1. Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claims 9 and 15
2See page 5 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007