Appeal No. 1998-1408 Page 6
Application No. 08/569,529
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 group claims 5, 6, and 7 with claim
1 and group claims 16 and 17 with claim 15. (Appeal Br. at
3.) They fail to state, let alone explain, however, whether
claim 18 is believed to be separately patentable from claim
15, from which it depends. Therefore, we consider the claims
to stand or fall together in the following groups: claims 1
and 5-7, claims 2-4, and claims 15-18. We select claims 1, 2,
and 15 to represent the respective groups. Next, we address
the obviousness of the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007