Appeal No. 2005-0077 Application No. 10/293,545 7-12 are separately patentable. However, we agree with the examiner that the appellant has not set forth a substantive argument for any of the claims that are asserted to be separately patentable. As explained by the examiner, appellant simply recites the various limitations in the separate claims without advancing an argument why the features of the claims would have been unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, other than for the reasons set forth for independent claims 1 and 6. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. There is no dispute that it was known in the art to translate trace designs on a web continuously moving through an etching bath. It is appellant's contention that none of the -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007