Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 16
Application No. 08/856,943
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201
USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). When the patentability of dependent
claims 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, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983); Burckel, 592 F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at 70.)
Here, because the appellants have not argued separately
the patentability of claims 24 and 25, these claims fall with
claim 23, from which they depend. Therefore, we affirm the
obviousness rejection of claims 23-25. We proceed to the
third group of claims.
III. Claims 26-28
The examiner asserts that he, “reads Tomura's phone (250)
as the housing. The battery is a part of the housing. In
other words, the phone (250) is a battery housing. The middle
or top end of the battery housing is the location of lug
(218).” (Examiner’s Answer at 9.) He further asserts, “the
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007