Appeal No. 2003-1447
Application No. 09/689,720
rejection.1 Consistent with this indication, Appellant has made no
separate arguments with respect to the remaining claims.
Accordingly, all the claims will stand or fall together, and we
will select claim 1, the broadest independent claim2, and claim 8,
a dependent claim, as representative of all of the claims on
appeal. Note In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48 USPQ2d
1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,
231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). They read as follows:
1. An automotive electronic component comprising:
a base component; and
a face plate which is detachable from said base component;
a cantilever element mounted on said base component;
a rib element rigidly mounted on said face plate;
wherein during removal of said face plate from said base
component, said rib element engages said cantilever element and
prevents complete disengagement of said face plate from said base
component until an additional force is applied to said face plate.
8. An automotive electronic component as described in
1 The examiner has stated (Examiner’s Answer, page 2, paragraph 7) that the
appellants’ brief includes a statement and reasons why the claims do not stand
or fall together per 37 C.F.R. 1.192(c)(7)and (c)(8). This is incorrect.
2 It appears that claim 11 is a virtual duplicate of claim 1 (omitting the
article “a” before elements). In the event of further prosecution, the
appellants should explain precisely how the claims differ in scope and the
examiner should consider an appropriate rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007