Appeal No. 97-1206 Page 6
Application No. 08/219,555
together. (Brief, p. 5) This contention appears to be based
on enumerated differences in what the claims cover. (Id. at
4-5) The appellants fails to present arguments why the
dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-5), which are subject to the
same rejection as the independent claim (i.e., claim 1), are
separately patentable. In the argument section of the appeal
brief the appellants makes no comment on the dependent claims
but only argues about the independent claim. Accordingly, it
is appropriate for us to treat the claims subject to the
rejection as standing or falling together as a single group.
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7); M.P.E.P. § 1206. 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).
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007