Appeal No. 2000-0431 Page 10
Application No. 08/789,127
(CCPA 1979)). When the patentability of a dependent claim is not
argued separately, in particular, the claim stands or falls with
the claim from which it depends. 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); In re Burckel,
592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979)).
Here, the appellants assert, “the claims are grouped as
follows: . . . Group III: claims 11 and 12.” (Appeal Br. at 11.)
Therefore, claim 12 stands or falls with representative claim 11.
With this representation in mind, we address the three points of
contention between the examiner and the appellants.
First, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious
to modify the robots of Kawakami or Nakamura “by incorporating
the features from the self-running cleaning apparatus of Bancroft
because such modification will provide an ‘efficient moving
apparatus’ where maximum area will be covered thereby.”
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007