Appeal No. 2001-0734
Application 09/071,264
differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus
satisfying the structural limitations of that claimed.
Accordingly, we find appellants’ arguments directed at
Amstutz to be unpersuasive as regards independent claims 31 and
44 on appeal and will sustain the examiner’s rejection of those
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
As for dependent claims 32 through 41 and 45 through 49, we
again find that appellants have not presented any separate
argument for the patentability of these claims apart from that
which was presented with regard to the independent claims (note,
for example, the first paragraph on page 13 of the brief).
Accordingly, we consider these dependent claims (i.e., claims 32
through 41 and 45 through 49) to again fall with the respective
parent claim from which they depend.
On page 13 of their brief, appellant’s have presented
separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 43, 50 and
51. In reviewing claim 43, we note that the partition system of
Amstutz includes leveling devices (44, Fig. 11), which leveling
devices extend below the partition and are secured to the floor
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007