Appeal No. 1996-0903
Application No. 07/692,211
USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187 F.2d 643, 645,
89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that there is
sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of
obviousness, if not anticipation, as far as the subject matter
of claim 41 is concerned. Accordingly, we will sustain the §
103 rejection of claim 41. We will also sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 42 through 44,
47 and 53 since appellants have failed to argue the
patentability of these dependent claims separately of claim
41. They therefore fall with claim 41. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA
1979).
We cannot, however, sustain the standing § 103 rejection
of claims 1 and 69. Both of these claims expressly recite the
step of depositing the irreversibly curable plastic
composition on the member of a rotogravure printing medium.
This affirmative step may not be dismissed, as the examiner
has done here, as merely constituting an intended use of the
article made by the claimed method. Claims 1 and 69 claim a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007