Appeal 2006-2967
Application 10/832,598
and 24 as being unpatentable over Miracky. We also conclude for the same
reasons that Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 12 through 17, 25, 26, 28 and 29 as being unpatentable
over Miracky.2
CONCLUSION OF LAW
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 through 5, 9, and 18 through 22 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Miracky.
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 6 through 8, 10, and 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Miracky.
(3) On this record, 1 through 10 and 18 through 23 have not been
shown to be unpatentable.
(4) Appellants have failed to establish that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 11 through 17, 24 through 26, 28, and 29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miracky.
(5) Claims 11 through 17, 24 through 26, 28 and 29 are not
patentable.
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims. 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 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013