Appeal No. 1999-0439
Application 08/652,908
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228
USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only
those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 2-7, 12 and
13 based on the teachings of Thompson taken alone. These
claims stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page
3]. With respect to representative, independent claim 2, the
examiner asserts that Thompson teaches the claimed invention
except for the latching portion of Thompson being integral
with the body portion. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to make Thompson’s latching
portion 21 integral with Thompson’s body portion 20,36 because
it has been held to involve only routine skill to form an
article in one piece which had formerly been formed in two
pieces, citing Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007