Appeal No. 2005-0263
Application No. 10/314,766
together. However, in the “Argument” section of the brief (i.e.,
see pages 5-13), the appellant has not presented any arguments
reasonably specific to any of the dependent claims 4-11. In this
regard, it is important to appreciate that, in order to have
commonly rejected claims separately considered, the claims not
only must be grouped separately but also must be argued
separately. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004);
formerly 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier,
21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.). Because these
dependent claims have not been argued separately on this appeal,
they will stand or fall with independent claim 1 which is the
sole independent claim before us. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d
1339, 1340, n.2, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636, n. 2 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the
rejections advanced on this appeal.
As correctly observed by the examiner (and not disputed by
the appellant), appealed independent claim 1 distinguishes from
each of Hadley, Allen and Di Giovanna in that none of these
references expressly teaches the here claimed limitation “wherein
said non-soap core occupies at least about 75 volume percent of
said bar element.” More particularly, these references contain
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007