Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
respect to Issue 7, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 17.
Dependent claims 18-20 and 24
Because claims 18-20 and 24 each depend upon independent claim
17, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18-20 and 24 as
being unpatentable over Kuwata in view of Dance, and further in view of
Somashekar.
Dependent claims 7, 8, 12, and 16
We note that Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments
directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 7, 8, 12, and 16
(See Br. 16). 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 claims 7, 8, 12, and 16 as being unpatentable over
Kuwata in view of Dance for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to independent claims 1, 9, and 13 as being anticipated by Kuwata.
Dependent claims 10 and 14
We note that the patentability of dependent claims 10 and 14 turns
upon our conclusion of law with respect to Issue 7 (obviousness). Because
we have found that the weight of the evidence supports Appellant’s position
with respect to Issue 7, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013