Appeal No. 97-3289
Application 08/550,895
regard to the subject matter recited in claim 18. This being
the case, we shall sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Moreover, since the appellants have chosen not to challenge
with any reasonable specificity before this Board the
rejection of dependent claims 19-23, they will be grouped with
independent claim 18, from which they depend, and fall
therewith. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Independent claims 9 and 15 are more detailed than
claim 18, in that among their limitations is the requirement
that “said bottom plastic sheet [be] smaller in area than
said woven textile top sheet and said inner plastic sheet.”
According to the appellants, this offers several advantages
(specification, page 8). None of the references disclose or
teach such a structural requirement, and the examiner has
taken the position that the relative sizes of the three sheets
“is a
matter of engineering design choice since this limitation does
not seem to materially affect the function of the claimed
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007