Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 6
Application No. 08/204,996
unless a statement is included that the claims of
the group do not stand or fall together and, in the
argument under paragraph (c)(8) of this section,
appellant explains why the claims of the group are
believed to be separately patentable. Merely
pointing out differences in what the claims cover is
not an argument as to why the claims are separately
patentable.
In addition, claims that are not argued separately stand or
fall together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When the patentability of
dependent claims in particular is not argued separately, the
claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend.
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).
The appellants state that the claims should be considered
in the following groups for the appeal: claims 1-3, claim 4,
claims 6 and 7, claim 11, claim 13, and claim 14. (Appeal Br.
at 5.) Conversely, the appellants omit a statement that
claims 1-3, 5, and 8-10 do not stand or fall together; a
statement that claims 11 and 12 do not stand or fall together;
and reasons why claims 2-3, 5, 8-10, and 12 are separately
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007