Appeal No. 96-4012
Application No. 08/197,908
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
We note that, at page 7 of the Brief, Appellant has
grouped together the claims subject to this rejection and,
consistent with this grouping, has made no separate arguments
with respect to any of the claims within this group. As to
Appellant’s listing on pages 4-7 of the Brief of an indication
of what each claim recites, we further note that simply
pointing out what the claims require with no attempt to point
out how the claims patentably distinguish over the prior art
does not amount to a separate argument for patentability. In
re Nielson, 816 F. 2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Accordingly, all of the claims in this group will
stand or fall together. Note 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).
With respect to independent claim 9, which we will choose
as the representative claim for this group, the Examiner has
indicated how the various limitations are read on the
disclosure of Galand (Answer, pages 3 and 4). In response,
Appellant’s arguments (Brief, pages 8-10) center on the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007