Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
In his main brief, appellant does not argue the separate
patentability of the features of claims 5 and 6 for which Hilton
is additionally cited. Instead, appellant argues that neither
Hilton nor the combination of Hilton with Suwa teaches the
features of the "support frame" and the "goggle-shaped housing"
in claim 1 (Brief, pages 18-19). In effect, appellant argues
that claims 5 and 6 should be patentable because claim 1 is
patentable, i.e., that claims 5 and 6 stand or fall together with
claim 1. Since we sustain the rejection of claim 1, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 7 and 9-13
Claims 7 and 9
In his main brief, appellant does not argue the separate
patentability of the features of claims 7 and 9 for which Heilig
is additionally cited. Instead, appellant argues that neither
Heilig nor the combination of Heilig with Suwa teaches the
features of the "support frame" and the "goggle-shaped housing"
in claim 1 (Brief, page 19). In effect, appellant argues that
claims 7 and 9 should be patentable because claim 1 is
patentable, i.e., that claims 7 and 9 stand or fall together with
claim 1. Since we sustain the rejection of claim 1, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 9. Appellant's new
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007