Appeal No. 1997-0461
Application 08/267,683
they apply to claims 28, 29 and 31.
Except for the separate patentability of claims 28, 29
and 31, appellant has failed to argue with any reasonable
degree of specificity the patentability of any specific claim.
Accordingly, the patentability of all the claims stands or
falls with independent claim 23 and, except for claims 28, 29
and 31, we shall decide the patentability of all the claims
based on the patentability of claim 23. In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705,
709, 231 USPQ 640, 642 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also 37 C.F.R. §
1.192(c)(7) (1996).3
Claim 23 is directed to a lubricant which requires two
components: (1) molybdenum disulfide powder; and, (2) a liquid
in which the molybdenum disulfide powder is dispersed to form
We recognize, as does the examiner, that appellant has3
stated on page 3 of his main brief that "Claims 23-31 are
to be considered as a group." However, it would constitute an
exaltation of form over substance to give effect to
appellant's statement above while ignoring appellant's other
statement of separate arguments made in both his brief and
reply brief concerning the separate patentability of claims
28, 29 and 31.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007