Appeal No. 2002-0558 Page 8
Application No. 09/289,076
Physics 617 (3d ed. 1964) (evidencing that metal and alloy conductors posses some
resistivity) (copy attached). Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.
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, although the appellant alleges, "[t]he claims do not stand or fall together,"
(Appeal Br. at 2), he argues claims 1 and 4 as a group. (Id. at 3-4). Furthermore, the
appellant fails to argue the patentability of claims 20-24 separately. Therefore, claims 4
and 20-24 fall with claim 1, and we affirm the rejections of claims 4 and claims 20-24.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007