Appeal No. 98-2156 Page 13
Application No. 08/421,489
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the
particular dimensions do "not specify a device which
perform[s] and operate[s] any differently from the prior art."
The appellant has not separately argued the patentability
of dependent claims 5-9 and 11 with any reasonable degree of
specificity. Accordingly, these claims fall with the claims
from which they depend. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R. §
1.192(c)(7): "Merely pointing out differences in what the
claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are
separately patentable."
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 5-7, 11 and 15-17 based
on the combined teachings of Kiley and Kimura, claim 8 based
on the combined teachings of Kiley, Kimura and Solomon and
claims 1, 8 and 9 based on the combined teachings of Kiley,
Kimura, Davis and Solomon.
Rejection (2)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007