Appeal No. 97-2466 Page 12
Application No. 08/461,943
been motivated to employ Cordy’s legality assertions in
Pyster’s intermediate code “because these assertions verify
conditions in a program and prevent aliasing of variables that
could cause erroneous run-time program results.” (Final
Rejection at 4.) His conclusion is based on Cordy’s teaching
of the problem and detection of aliasing. It does not include
knowledge gleaned only from the appellants’ disclosure.
Therefore, we find that the combination is proper.
When the patentability of dependent claims 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). Here, the appellants do not
argue separately the patentability of claims 8 and 9, which
depend from claim 1, or of claims 12 and 17, which depend from
claim 11. To the contrary, they insist that claims 1, 8, and
9 stand or fall together and that claims 11, 12, and 17 stand
or fall together. (Appeal Br. at 10.) Thus, claims 8 and 9
fall with claim 1 and claims 12 and 17 fall with claim 11.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007