Appeal No. 1999-2388
Application 08/758,513
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-9
based on Paulsen taken alone. Appellant has indicated that
the claims on appeal do not stand or fall together [brief,
page 6]. However, appellant has made no separate arguments
with respect to the claims subject to this rejection. The
extent of appellant’s argument is to simply indicate what is
recited in each of the claims [brief, pages 9-10]. Simply
pointing out what a claim requires with no attempt to point
out how the claims patentably distinguish over the prior art
does not amount to a separate argument for patentability. In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Since appellant has failed to appropriately argue
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007