Appeal No. 1999-1694
Application No. 08/474,903
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Wada reference fully meets the invention as set forth in
claims 18-29, 39, 42, 44-46, and 51. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claim 41. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part.
Appellants nominally indicate at page 4 of the Brief that
all of the appealed claims stand or fall separately. Separate
arguments for patentability in the Briefs, however, have been
made only for rejected independent claims 18, 24, 39, and 51, and
dependent claim 41. We will consider the appealed claims
separately only to the extent that separate arguments are of
record in this appeal. Any dependent claim not argued separately
will stand or fall with its base claim. Note 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).
We initially consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of independent claims 18 and 24 as being anticipated by
Wada. We note that anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007