Ex Parte MCCAVOUR - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2000-1654                                                        
          Application 09/097,860                                                      

          positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the              
          merits of this rejection.3                                                  
                                     DISCUSSION                                       
          I. Grouping of claims                                                       
               The appellant allows that for purposes of this appeal “the             
          claims stand or fall together” (main brief, page 4).  Therefore,            
          pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have chosen representative             
          claim 1 and shall decide the appeal on the basis of this claim              
          alone.  Claims 2 through 23 shall stand or fall with claim 1.               
          II. The merits of the rejection                                             
               Wilson discloses a corrugated metal box culvert 78 having a            
          crown 82, haunches 84 and sidewalls 80.  A continuous corrugated            
          metal reinforcement 86 overlies at least a major portion of the             
          crown, and possibly portions of the haunches and sidewalls, and             
          preferably extends the length of the culvert.  Bolts connect the            
          troughs of the corrugated reinforcement to the crests of the                
          corrugated culvert to define transversely extending cavities (see           



               3 The record indicates that the instant application is a               
          continuation of Application 08/662,070, filed June 12, 1996, now            
          U.S. Patent No 5,833,394, granted November 10, 1998.  Given the             
          similarities between the appealed claims and the patent claims,             
          in the event of further prosecution the examiner may wish to                
          consider whether a double patenting issue exists.                           
                                          4                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007