Appeal No. 1998-1365 Page 5
Application No. 08/663,969
Grouping of the Claims
When the appeal brief was filed, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)
(1997) 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.
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 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 appellants fail to explain why claims 27, 28,
31, 35-37, 40, and 44 are believed to be separately
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007