Appeal No. 97-3195
Application 08/387,419
specified without any separate argument distinguishing each
dependent claim relative to the teachings of the applied prior
art, e.g., on pages 15 and 16 of the main brief, only the subject
matter of dependent claims 2, 7, and 9 is mentioned. Therefore,
we consider each of the dependent claims on appeal to stand or
fall with their respective parent claims. It follows from the
above that we shall focus our attention, infra, exclusively upon
independent claims 1 and 4.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims 1 and 4,3 the applied
patents,4 and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the
3 For reasons set forth in a new ground of rejection, infra,
we conclude that claim 1 is indefinite. Nevertheless, we
understand this claim to the extent that we can assess the merits
of the examiner’s rejection thereof on appeal.
4 In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007