Appeal No. 1996-2046
Application 07/978,450
reverse.
Appellant has nominally indicated that the claims do
not stand or fall together [brief, page 4], but he has not
specifically argued the limitations of each of the claims.
The extent of appellant’s arguments appears on pages 7-8 of
the brief wherein it is baldly asserted that the prior art
does not teach or suggest features of the various dependent
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 appellant’s
brief was filed, 37 CFR
§ 1.192(8)(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
unobvious over the prior art.” Appellant’s arguments fail to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007