Appeal No. 2002-0543 Page 4
Application No. 09/118,629
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)). 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).
Here, the appellant stipulates, "independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3
through 10 stand or fall together. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 5-6.) We select claim 1 as
representative of the claims in the group. With this representation in mind, rather than
reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we address the following
points of contention therebetween:
• proximity switch
• one-shot timer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007