Appeal No. 2006-3093 Page 16
Application No. 10/754,306
“plural control code tables which define the relationship between functions of a
plurality of electronic devices,” emphasis added]. We note that we have fully
addressed supra appellants’ argument that the examiner has failed to provide a
proper motivation to combine the references. Therefore, we agree with the
examiner that the subject matter of representative claim 4 is 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 19 and 69.
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 at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. 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.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of all the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 7, 16-19 and
66-69 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007