Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 6
Application No. 08/366,988
F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(citing In
re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and Burckel,
592 F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at 70.)
Here, the appellants indicate, “claims 1 and 3 stand or
fall together ....” (Appeal Br. at 5.) Rather than arguing
separately the patentability of dependent claim 12, they
merely refer to “the same reasons as given above for claim 1,”
(id. at 18), from which the former claim depends. Therefore,
claims 1, 3, and 12 stand or fall together in a group; we
select claim 1 to represent the group.
The appellants also indicate, “claims 13 to 16 stand or
fall together,” (id. at 5), and “claims 14, 15 and 23 stand or
fall together.” (Id.) Therefore, claims 13-16 and 23 stand
or fall together in a second group; we select claim 13 to
represent the second group.
In addition, the appellants indicate, “claims 5 and 17
stand or fall together ....” (Id.) Rather than arguing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007