Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 22
Application No. 08/962,902
The appellant has grouped claims 9-12 and 32 as standing
or falling together (brief, p.7). Thereby, in accordance with
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 9-12 fall with claim 32. Thus,
it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims
9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claim 33
The appellant states (brief, p. 7) that the patentability
of dependent claim 33 depends on the patentability of claim 31
[sic, claim 32 since claim 33 depends from independent claim
32). In view of our affirmance of the decision of the
examiner to reject both claims 31 and 32 above, the decision
of the examiner to reject claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
also affirmed.
Claim 23
Dependent claim 23 has not been separately argued by the
appellant. Accordingly, claim 23 will be treated as falling
with its parent claim 1. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007