Appeal No. 1997-0975 Page 3
Application No. 08/389,303
relied upon by appellants, we concur with the examiner's
determinations regarding the unpatentability of the claimed
subject matter and find no reversible error on the examiner's
part in maintaining the rejections under review. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
103 for essentially those reasons expressed in the examiner's
answer and as further explained below.
Appellants "assert that the rejected claims do not stand or
fall together" (brief, page 4). However, appellants do not
separately argue the appealed claims with respect to the
rejections advanced by the examiner with any reasonable
specificity consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) and (8) (1995).
In this regard, merely pointing out differences in the coverage
of the claims does not amount to a separate argument warranting
separate consideration of the claims (brief, pages 2 and 3).
Accordingly, we consider the patentability of the claims to rise
or fall together. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We will direct our
comments primarily to claim 54.
As indicated above, claim 54 is directed to a method
comprising the sole step of implanting a plastic prosthetic
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007