Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 12
Application No. 09/139,309
Here, although Kouchich discloses a layer of variable voltage material, viz., "a
varistor composition 1," col. 4, ll. 36, the reference does not include a layer of neat
dielectric polymer or glass touching the varistor composition. To the contrary, the
varistor composition is "interposed between a pair of electrodes 3. . . ." Id. at ll. 36-37.
The absence from Kouchich of a layer of variable voltage material separate from, but
touching, a layer of neat dielectric polymer or glass negates anticipation. Therefore, we
reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 5 and 31 and of claims 6-10, which depend
from the former, over Kouchich.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5-10 over Xu
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)). 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).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007