Appeal No. 1998-3128 Page 6 Application No. 08/624,874 we consider the obviousness of the following groups of claims: • claims 1-3 and 6-8 • claims 4, 5, 9, and 10. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 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. 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.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007