Appeal 2007-1570
Application 10/646,720
fully addressed the issue of motivation supra. Therefore, we do not find
Appellant’s argument persuasive, and we find that Appellant has not shown
error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19 as being
unpatentable over Barada in view of Carraras and also as being unpatentable
over Barada in view of Zumback for essentially the same reasons set forth in
the Answer (see Answer 3-5).
Dependent claims 20-24
We further note that Appellant has not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims
20-24. 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)(2004). Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-24 as being unpatentable over
Barada in view of Carraras and also as being unpatentable over Barada in
view of Zumbach for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claim 19.
Independent claims 39 and 46 (elements)
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 39
and 46 as being unpatentable over Barada in view of Carraras as well as the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 and 46 as being unpatentable over Barada
in view of Zumbach.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013