Appeal No. 97-3423 Application 08/336,134 claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 3 and 12, which appellants treat as standing or falling with claims 1 and 10, respectively (Brief at 3). The rejection is affirmed with respect to dependent claims 4 and 13 on the ground that they are not separately argued. Appellants' explanation (Brief at 6 and 9-10) of what these claims recite is not a separate argument. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995) ("Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are separately patentable."). Turning now to the remaining dependent claims, claim 2 specifies that the means for customizing the hardware configuration is capable of customizing common hardware in various docking stations. This rejection is affirmed, because appellants have not explained why Swindler's configuration software does not inherently have this capability. For the same reason, the rejection of similar claim 20 is affirmed. Claim 5 recites, inter alia, first drive means for driving the tray and the portable computer "into and out of" the housing. Appellants' Figure 3 shows portable computer 13 and tray 39 in their "out of" the housing positions. The - 12 -Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007