Appeal No. 1997-3497 Page 6
Application No. 08/312,295
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(iv)(1995). In this regard, we note that
merely pointing out the features of the various dependent claims
does not serve to explain in detail why each such claim is
separately patentable over the prior art as applied by the
examiner under § 103. Accordingly, we consider the dependent
claims 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-24 to stand or fall with
independent claim 1, on this record. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1571, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In any event,
even if separate consideration of the dependent claims for which
separate groupings have been identified was warranted on this
record, we note that a sufficient explanation of the rejections
of the appealed claims is found in the examiner's answer to
refute appellants' position as set forth in the brief relative to
those separately grouped dependent claims as well as to refute
appellants' position regarding independent claim 1 and separately
argued independent claim 28.
Like appellants, Shiga discloses a biaxially oriented
polypropylene film structure. The examiner has found that Shiga
uses a highly isotactic polypropylene that corresponds to the
polypropylene of appellants’ claim 1 (answer, page 4, lines 2-6).
Appellants do not specifically dispute that finding of the
examiner. As also found by the examiner (answer, pages 3 and 4),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007