Ex parte SHINOTSUKA et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 1997-1665                                       Page 7           
          Application No. 08/289,134                                                  


               When the appeal brief was filed, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)               
          (1998) included the following provisions.                                   
               For each ground of rejection which appellant                           
               contests and which applies to a group of two or more                   
               claims, the Board shall select a single claim from                     
               the group and shall decide the appeal as to the                        
               ground of rejection on the basis of that claim alone                   
               unless a statement is included that the claims of                      
               the group do not stand or fall together and ...                        
               appellant explains why the claims of the group are                     
               believed to be separately patentable.  Merely                          
               pointing out differences in what the claims cover is                   
               not an argument ... why the claims are separately                      
               patentable.                                                            
          In general, claims that are not argued separately stand or                  
          fall together.  In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ                 
          1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  When the patentability of                     
          dependent claims in particular is not argued separately, the                
          claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend.                
          In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir.               
          1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed.               
          Cir. 1983).                                                                 


               Here, the patentability of dependent claims 12 and 13 is               
          not argued separately from the patentability of independent                 
          claim 1. To the contrary, the appellants state, “[c]laims 1,                








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007