Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
§ 103 rejection of claims 1 and 15 based on Giladi and
Cepparo. We will also sustain the § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, and 16 based on Giladi in view of
Cepparo and Kishi since the patentability of these
dependent claims has not been argued separately of the
claims from which they depend. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re
Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA
1979). Merely reiterating what each of these dependent
claims recites (see pages 19-21 of the main brief) or
stating that these dependent claims are considered to be
patentably distinct from their parent claims (see pages 19-
21 of the main brief) does not amount to an argument that
these dependent claims are patentable separately of the
claims from which they depend. With further regard to
claim 3, appellant’s assertion in the first paragraph on
page 20 of the main brief that the platforms are linearly
movable relates to claim 1, not claim 3. Accordingly,
appellant has failed to separately argue the patentability
of claims 2, 3 and 16 with any reasonable specificity.
They therefore stand or fall with the claims from which
they depend.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007