Appeal 2007-1775
Application 09/749,106
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-21, and 23-31
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed to
the separate patentability of dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-21, and 23-31.
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, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra
with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 22.
DECISION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness based on Bonomi in view of Pallakoff. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-31 is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013