Appeal 2006-0342
Application 09/944,893
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being unpatentable
over Pogue in view of Tennenhouse. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal with respect to claims 2-7,
9-12, and 15 on the basis of the selected claim alone. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over
Pogue in view of Tennenhouse for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to representative claim 1 (i.e., where claim 1 was found unpatentable
over Pogue in view of Tennenhouse).
Dependent claims 8, 13, and 14
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 8, 13,
and 14 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Pogue in view of
Tennenhouse, and further in view of Daniels.
We see no deficiencies with respect to Pogue as modified by
Tennenhouse, as discussed supra. We have also fully addressed Daniels
supra. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of claims 8, 13, and 14. 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. Therefore, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Pogue
in view of Tennenhouse, and further in view of Daniels for the same reasons
discussed supra with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11
as being unpatentable over Pogue in view of Tennenhouse.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013