Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10, 21, 23, 38, 49, and 51
as being anticipated by Roberts.
We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments
directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 12-14,
16-18, 20, 24, 26, 27, 30-32, 34-36, 40-42, 44-46, 48, 52, 54, and 55. 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). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims as being anticipated by Roberts for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to Issue 1 (independent claims 1, 11, 25, and 28), Issues 1 and 2
(independent claims 29, 39, 50, 53, and 56), and Issues 1 and 3 (independent claim
22).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the record before us, we find Appellant has not shown the Examiner
failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for each of claims 1-56.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-56.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013