Waxman v. Reines in the Soverain v. Newegg case

From Soverain decided by the CAFC:

Of dependent claims at issue:


We cannot discern for ourselves any
independent basis for their validity. We therefore affirm
the holding of invalidity of these claims as well.”); see also
SIBIA Neurosciences, 225 F.3d at 1359 (“in this appeal,
SIBIA has failed to argue the validity of the dependent
claims separately from the validity of claim 1. Thus,
these claims do not stand on their own, and given our
determination that claim 1 is invalid, the remaining
dependent claims must fall as well.”).

On this rehearing, Soverain has not provided any new
information concerning the specific limitation of claim 35.
The inclusion of an additional known element from a
similar system, as set forth in claim 35, is subject to
review on established principles, as summarized in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(an unobvious combination must be “more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions”). The supplemental briefing reinforces
the absence of dispute that that the element in claim 35 is
in the CompuServe Mall prior art.