Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 3
Application No. 09/207,420
collection of references to possible subordinate entities and a second
collection of references to superior entities such that a status message
relating to an entity is likewise valid for each subordinate entity associated
with the relevant entity by means of its first collection.
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 5,608,907 (“Fehskens”).
OPINION
At the outset, we recall that 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 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, rather than arguing the patentability of dependent claims 2 or 5 separately,
the appellant asserts that "[b]y virtue of their dependency from claim 1, [the] claims . . .
implicitly recite the above-described feature, and are therefore similarly unanticipated
by the applied reference." (Appeal Br. at 6.) He also stipulates, "[t]he claims stand or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007