Appeal No. 1998-1387 Page 5
Application No. 08/208,791
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 appellants state, “Independent Claim 1 and
dependent Claims 11 and 12 are grouped together ....” (Appeal
Br. at 5.) They add, “Dependent Claims 13 ... and 19 are
grouped together ....” (Id.)
Regarding claim 21, the appellants merely point out
differences in what the claim covers and allege, “There is no
teaching in the cited references which disclose or suggest
[sic] this feature ....” (Appeal Br. at 21.) This does not
amount to an argument that claim 21 is separately patentable.
Furthermore, the appellant does not contest the examiner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007