Appeal No. 2006-0542 Page 4
Application No. 10/054,083
appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board
must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Sep. 30, 2004). When the patentability of dependent claims in
particular is not argued separately, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which
they depend. 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).
Here, the appellants argue claims 1 and 3-10, which are subject to the same
ground of rejection, as a group. (Appeal Br. at 3-8.) They likewise argue claims 11 and
13, which are subject to the same ground of rejection, as a group. (Id. at 8-9.) For our
part, we select claims 1 and 11 as the sole claims on which to decide the appeal of the
respective groups.
"Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the point of contention therebetween." Ex parte Muresan, No. 2004-1621,
2005 WL 951659, at *1 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. Feb 10, 2005). The examiner finds, "Suzuki
teaches, at column 3, lines 47-57), which states in part, 'The first and second levers 39
are for prying in cooperation with the card 21 to put the card 21 into and out of
mechanical contact with the card edge connector and to bring the connecting pads 25
into and out of electrical contact with the conductive contacts 17.' This teaching is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007