Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 13
Application No. 10/754,306
control many types of electronic devices” [col. 8, lines 49-53]. We find that the
advantage of conserving memory space would have been well within the general
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, in addition to
being explicitly taught by the Kitao reference at col. 8, lines 49-53. Therefore, we
find that the examiner has met his/her burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 as being unpatentable over Shintani in view of Kitao.
We further note that appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 7,
16-18 and 66-68. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to the
dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative independent
claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons set forth by the examiner
in the rejection.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007