Appeal No. 2001-2579 Page 4
Application No. 08/885,996
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the following groups of claims:
• claims 1 and 2
• claim 3
• claims 4-9.
Claims 1 and 2
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, the appellant stipulates, "[c]aim 2 stands or falls with claim 1" (Appeal Br.
at 5.) Therefore, claim 2 stands or falls with representative claim 1.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellant in toto, we address the three points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "Sasaki suggest a single print driver which is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007