Appeal 2007-1570
Application 10/646,720
in view of Zumbach for the same reasons set forth in the Examiner’s
rejections (see Answer 3-5).
Dependent claims 40-45 and 47-52
We note that Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments
directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 40-45 and 47-52.
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 at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims 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 claims 39
and 46.
Dependent claim 25
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 25 as
being unpatentable over Barada in view of Carraras and Nemeth as well as
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 as being unpatentable over Barada in
view of Zumbach and Nemeth.
Appellant argues that Nemeth does not remedy the deficiencies of
Barada, Carraras, and Zumbach, taken alone or in combination (Br. 20). We
find no deficiencies with Barada, Carraras, and Zumbach, as discussed
supra. Therefore, we conclude the Examiner has met the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to dependent claim
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013