Appeal No. 1999-2050 Page 5
Application No. 08/576,544
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.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Here, the appellant states, "[i]ndependent claims 1-5 ...
are allowable or fall together." (Appeal Br. at 3.)
Therefore, these claims stand or fall together as a group. We
select
claim 1 to represent the group.
We note the following principles from Rowe v. Dror, 112
F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007