Appeal 2007-1963
Application 10/121,226
Dependent claims 15, 25, 33, 40, and 50
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 25, 33, 40,
and 50 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Veliadis in view of Hoyt,
and further in view of Gregory.
Appellants argue that Gregory does not remedy the deficiencies of
Veliadis because Gregory does not teach a vehicle (Br. 15).
We note that the Examiner relies upon Hoyt as teaching a vehicle
carrying an electrical load (See Answer 5). The Examiner’s rejection is
based upon the combination of Veliadis, Hoyt, and Gregory. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Thus, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments
directed to the separate patentability of dependent claims 15, 25, 33, 40, and
50. 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 dependent claims 15, 25, 33, 40, and 50 as being unpatentable
over Veliadis in view of Hoyt and Gregory for the same reasons set forth
above regarding independent claims 1, 20, 26, 34, and 47, respectively.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013