Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
MAPPING OF ISSUES TO SPECIFIC CLAIMS
A. We note that the patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 15, 16,
20, 23-27, 29, 30, 33-40 (argued as a group)3 turns upon our
findings of fact and conclusion of law with respect to Issues 1
and 2. Because we have found the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s position on Issues 1 and 2, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder.
B. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claim 3 (see Br. 9). A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). 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 sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3
as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder and further in
view of Reshef for the same reasons discussed supra with
3 Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated
these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we have
considered independent claim 1 as the representative claim for rejection (A).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013