Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
teachings. In fact, appellants do not contend that these
claims recite any additional patentable distinctions over the
combined teaching of AAPA and Salfisberg. Instead, appellants
are content with asserting on pages 10-11 of the brief that
these claims are patentable because Schwinn does not make up
for the alleged deficiencies of AAPA and Salfisberg argued by
appellants with respect to claims 1 and 16. Such an argument
is not tantamount to an argument that claims 2, 3, 9, 10 and
17 are patentable separately of claims 1 and 16. In short,
appellants have failed to separately argue the patentability
of these claims with any reasonable specificity. They
therefore fall with claims 1 and 16. See In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In
re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA
1979).
The § 103 rejection of claims 4-8 and 11-15
(rejection (d))
We agree with appellants’ argument on page 11 of the
brief that the combined teachings of the applied references,
and in particular the Pokras reference additionally relied
upon by the examiner in this rejection, do not teach or
-12-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007