Appeal No. 2001-2055 Page 4
Application No. 08/750,870
Claims 1-10 and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by U.S. Patent No. 5,440,614 (“Sonberg”).1
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)). Furthermore,
“[m]erely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why
the claims are separately patentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7).
Here, although the appellants point out differences in what claims 1-10 and 13-
21 cover, (Appeal Br. at 12-13), this is not an argument why the claims are separately
patentable. Furthermore, they argue the claims 1-10 and 13-21 as a group. (Id. at 14-
21.) Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13-21 stand or fall with representative claim 6.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellants in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. The examiner makes the following assertion.
1We advise the examiner to copy his rejections into his examiner’s answers
rather than merely referring to a “rejection . . . set forth in prior Office Action. . . .”
(Examiner’s Answer at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007