Appeal No. 1999-0972
Application 08/724,340
inherency. Since all of the other limitations in claim 1,
including the width dimension of “between about one and about
eight inches,” read on Gay’s insulation assembly, the
examiner’s determination that the subject matter recited in
this claim is anticipated by Gay is well founded.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Gay.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 6, 9 through 11 and 19
through 24 as being anticipated by Gay since the appellants
have not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these
claims to stand or fall with parent claim 1 (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
As for the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1
through 16 and 18 through 26, Grant discloses a multiple
conformable insulation assembly 60 comprising at least two
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007