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