Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
primary mass and having a top wall. Appellant also does not
take issue with the examiner’s implicit findings that the top
surface of the block-shaped sign is defined by the top
surfaces of the primary mass and the indicator means in the
position shown in Figure 2 of the patent drawings. Instead,
the only reference to claim 22 in the argument section
concerning the § 103 rejections is found on page 20 of the
brief where the only argument regarding claim 22 itself, as
distinguished from claim 1 (which, as noted supra, is of
distinctly different scope), is that the content identifier
“is mounted adjacent to the inlet conduit cover and that it
supports vehicular traffic and is wear resistant.” These
arguments are without merit.
In the first place, claim 22 merely recites that the
primary mass is “attachable” adjacent to the inlet cover. It
does not, however, recite that the identifier “is mounted
adjacent to the inlet conduit cover” as argued by appellant.
Claim 22 also does not recite that the identifier is “wear
resistant.” Since these features have not been claimed in
claim 22, they may not be relied upon to support patentability
of that claim. See In re Self, 671 f.2d 1344, 1348, 231 USPQ
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007