Appeal No. 98-1523 Page 6
Application No. 08/705,744
In regard to the appellant’s argument that Warner does
not disclose a clip pin, we note that claim 18 does not recite
a clip pin. As such, this argument is not persuasive because
it is not commensurate in scope with the actual scope of claim
18.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable as anticipated by Warner. The decision of the
examiner to reject claims 20 and 23 through 25 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also sustained since the appellant has
not addressed the separate patentability of these claims. See
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 18,
20, 23 through 25 and 27 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Asibert ‘977. It is the examiner’s
opinion that Azibert ‘977 clearly discloses all features of
the claimed invention, as illustrated by Fig. 4.
The appellant argues that Azibert ‘977 does not disclose
an axial extension on the clip located adjacent the bolt or a
clip pin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007