Appeal No. 1997-1654 Page 6
Application No. 08/431,307
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 fail to explain why dependent claims 27,
28 and 31-37 and independent claim 47, which are subject to
the same rejection as independent claim 26, are believed to be
separately patentable; why dependent claims 41-46, which are
subject to the same rejection as independent claim 38, are
believed to be separately patentable; or why dependent claims
50 and 51, which are subject to the same rejection as
independent claim 49, are believed to be separately
patentable. Therefore, claims 26-28, 31-37, and 47 stand or
fall together, with claim 26 as the representative claim of
the group; claims 38 and 41-46 stand or fall together, with
claim 38 as the representative claim of the group; and claims
49-51 stand or fall together, with claim 49 as the
representative claim of the group. Next, we address the
obviousness of the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007