Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
Claims 23, 31, and 39
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 23,
31, and 39 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shamoon in view of
Mitchell.
Appellants argue that claims 23, 31, and 39 should be allowed for the
same reasons previously argued for independent claims 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 23,
31, and 39. 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 Mitchell for the same reasons discussed
supra with respect to independent claims 19, 27 and 35.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we have
sua sponte set forth new grounds of rejection for claims 3, 9, 15, 21, 29,
and 37.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the
basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Decision:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013