Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
ANALYSIS
In essence, Appellants present six (6) different arguments. For
example, Appellants separately argue claims 1, 5, 34, 26, 27, and 30.
For claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-17, 19-21, 23, 25, 28-31, 35-40, and 43-48,
Appellants repeat the same argument made for claim 1. We will therefore
treat claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-17, 19-21, 23, 25, 28-31, 35-40, and 43-48 as
standing or falling with claim 1.
For claims 10 and 18, Appellants repeat the same argument made for
claim 5. We will therefore treat claims 10 and 18 as standing or falling with
claim 5.
For claim 43, Appellants repeat the same argument made for claim 34.
We will therefore treat claim 43 as standing or falling with claim 34.
For claim 35, Appellants repeat the same argument made for claim 26.
We will therefore treat claim 35 as standing or falling with claim 26.
For claim 36, Appellants repeat the same argument made for claim 27.
We will therefore treat claim 36 as standing or falling with claim 27.
For claim 39, Appellants repeat the same argument made for claim 30.
We will therefore treat claim 39 as standing or falling with claim 30.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Regarding Representative Claim 1
Appellants contend that “nothing is disclosed in Lemelson regarding
conserving power as claimed by the Applicants in the application-at-issue.”
(Br. 4). Appellants further contend that “Lemelson does not provide for
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013