Appellant Hamburger loses. The perils of not arguing separately for patentability of dependent claims.

From Ex parte Hamburger

On why one should argue dependent claim separately:


Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 26, 29 and 30-32 are each dependent
either directly or indirectly on claim 1. Clms. Appx. Appellants argue that
each of Skomial, Bruce, Sing, Brown, Lawrence and Deken do not provide
disclosures that cure the deficiencies of Kaczmarski and Garden for claim 1,
and that claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 26, 29 and 30-32 are allowable due to
their dependency from claim 1. Br. 6-11. As we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, these arguments are not persuasive. We thus also sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 26, 29 and 30-32.