Appeal 2007-0936
Application 10/455,507
region because the hole reduces the stiffness of the load beam in that region.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Imamura discloses an equivalent
structure (as clearly shown in Figs. 3 and 4A). Because we find that
Imamura discloses a “spring region between the proximal end and the rigid
body [of the load beam],” we will affirm the rejection of independent claims
10 and 16.
Dependent claims 11-15 and 17-21
We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 11-15
and 17-21. 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). Therefore, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 11-15 and 17-21 as being anticipated by Imamura for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claims 10 and 16.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 10-21 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013