Appeal No. 1999-1345 Page 8
Application No. 08/482,556
art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby,
309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
Furthermore, 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) (citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d
1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). When the patentability of
dependent is not argued separately, moreover, 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)(citing
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and
Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67.)
Here, the appellants assert, “[t]hese claims should be
considered in two groups: Group I: 34 and 41; and Group II: 33
and 40.” (Appeal Br. at 5.) Therefore, claims 33 and 40
stand or fall together in a first group, and claims 34 and 41
stand or fall together in a second group. We select claims 40
and 41 to represent the respective groups. With these
principles and representation in mind, we address the first
group of claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007