Appeal No. 1997-3913
Application No. 07/860,386
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Burger does fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 1-25. Accordingly, we
affirm.
Appellants have nominally indicated that the claims do
not stand or fall together, but they have not specifically
argued the limitations of each of the claims. Simply pointing
out what a claim requires with no attempt to point out how the
claims
patentably distinguish over the prior art does not amount to a
separate argument for patentability. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To the
extent that appellants have properly argued the reasons for
independent patentability of specific claims, we will consider
such claims individually for patentability. To the extent
that appellants have made no separate arguments with respect
to some of the claims, such claims will stand or fall with the
claims from which they depend. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007