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.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007