Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In the instant case, we have fully addressed the issue of the “single
web page” limitation with respect to claim 1 supra. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 12, and 18 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Shamoon in view of Nicolas for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1.
Claims 4, 5, 24, 32-34, and 40
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4, 5,
24, 32-34, and 40 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shamoon in
view of Nicolas.
Appellants argue that claims 4, 5, 24, 32-34, and 40 should be allowed
for the same reasons previously argued for independent claims 1, 19, 27 and
35, from which these claims depend (Br. 11).
We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 4, 5,
24, 32-34, and 40 . 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 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Shamoon in view of Nicolas for the same reasons discussed
supra with respect to independent claims 1, 19, 27 and 35.
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013