Appeal No. 2002-1224
Application No. 09/266,927
distinction over the applied prior art. The mere reiteration of
claim subject matter does not constitute an argument within the
meaning of 37 CFR § 1.192(c). It follows that, in assessing the
merits of the above noted rejections, we have separately
considered only the claims which have been individually argued
with reasonable specificity by the appellant.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning these rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of the rejections before us on this appeal.
Concerning the section 102 rejections based on the Tollin
and Edwards patents, the appellant argues that these references
contain no teaching of the natural sponge feature required by the
rejected claims. We agree with the examiner, however, that the
“sponge” disclosure in these respective references is generic to
both a synthetic as well as a natural sponge. In this regard, it
is appropriate to emphasize that the appellant in his brief does
not specifically contest or even acknowledge the examiner’s
position on this matter. Because we see no error in this
position and because the appellant points to none, we consider
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007