Appeal 2007-1630
Application 10/422,661
In response, we find no deficiencies with Pombo, as discussed supra
with respect to claim 1. Thus, Appellant has not presented any substantive
arguments directed to the separate patentability of dependent claims 4, 5, 10,
11, 16, and 17. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to the
dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative
independent claims. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Pombo in
view of Croft for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claim 1.
Claims 6, 12, and 18
We note that Appellant has presented no arguments directed to the
combinability of Pombo and Ariga with each other. Accordingly, Appellant
has waived any such arguments, and the combinability of the references will
not be addressed here. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
Appellant argues that Ariga does not overcome the deficiencies of
Pombo, in that Ariga is silent with respect to the handling of transient or
intermittent signals, as claimed (App. Br. 8).
In response, we find no deficiencies with Pombo, as discussed supra
with respect to claim 1. Thus, Appellant has not presented any substantive
arguments directed to the separate patentability of dependent claims 6, 12,
and 18. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as
being unpatentable over Pombo in view of Ariga for the same reasons
discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013