Appeal No. 97-2888 Application 08/389,077 examiner that the limitation is met by the clamps 18 shown in Heffington, since the clamps disclosed by the reference are clearly capable of being mounted to a variety of conventional operating tables having different widths and different sized side rails, i.e., side rails having different lengths. In view of the above, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 32. Claims 20, 22 and 27 (dependent on claim 18) and claims 35, 44, 45 and 46 (dependent directly or indirectly on claim 32) have not been separately argued by appellant as required in 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(1996). Accordingly, we have determined that these claims must be treated as standing or falling with their respective independent claim. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, it follows that the examiner's rejection of claims 20, 22, 27, 35, 44, 45 and 46 is also affirmed. We will also sustain the rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Michelson '943 in view of Heffington and further in view of Michelson '892. 16Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007