Appeal No. 1996-1813
Application No. 08/117,453
Relied upon to teach that NIR analyzers require periodic
calibration by the introduction and analysis of verification
samples (paragraph bridging pages 57-58). The reference does
not describe the use of multiple calibration standards.
Discussion
In presenting the appeal, applicants have separately
addressed each rejection, but has not separately asserted the
patentability of the claims within each group for each of the
rejections. The claims stand or fall together for the
rejections where the applicants have not separately argued
their patentability. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5); In re Goodman, 11
F.3d 1046, 1053, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2013 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernakar, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Albrecht, 579 F.2d 92, 93-94,
198 USPQ 208, 209 (CCPA 1978). Where an applicant does not
“point out what relevance the additional limitations have to
the patentability of the narrower claims,” the claims will
stand or fall together even if applicants assert that the
claims do not stand or fall together. In re Herbert, 461 F.2d
1390, 1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260 (CCPA 1972).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007