Appeal No. 1999-0503
Application 08/744,207
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 9,
16 and 20 based on the teachings of Baxter in view of Hanson
and Deki. Although appellants have nominally indicated that
the claims do not stand or fall together [brief, page 3], they
have not specifically argued the limitations of each of the
claims. Simply pointing out that claims differ in scope with
no attempt to point out how the claims additionally patentably
distinguish over the prior art does not amount to a separate
argument for patentability. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To the extent
that appellants have properly argued the reasons for
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007