Appeal No. 1999-0081
Application No. 08/506,645
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting:
Although I agree with the majority’s decision to reverse
the rejection of claims 5 and 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), I
disagree with their decision to reverse the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4 under § 103(a) as being obvious over
SuperPaint. After considering the record, I am persuaded that
the examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 under
§ 103(a) as being obvious over SuperPaint. Accordingly, I
would affirm the rejection of claims 1-4. My opinion
addresses the grouping and obviousness of these claims.
I. Grouping of Claims 1-4
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).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007