Appeal No. 2003-1336 Page 6
Application No. 09/642,398
hole pattern different than the first block. Thus, it is our opinion that all of the structural
limitations of the blocks read on Hennessey. Claim 18 therefore is anticipated by the
reference and we will sustain this rejection.
We are not persuaded that this decision is incorrect by the appellants’
arguments, which are directed to the relationship between the blocks and the clamp
and workpiece, whereas the claim is directed only to a system of blocks and not to the
combination of blocks and a clamp, or to blocks, a clamp and a workpiece. Arguments
predicated upon limitations that are not present in the claims are not persuasive. See
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Since the appellants have not argued the separate patentability of claims 19-22,
they fall with claim 18, from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. 1.192(c)(7) and Section
1206 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
Independent claim 23 recites the invention in terms of the first block defining a
first hole pattern “that is configured to define at least one unobstructed path from said
workpiece, through said first block, to a point away from said clamp.” It is our opinion
that the blocks disclosed in Hennessey are capable of being aligned in such a fashion
with respect to a clamp and a workpiece as to meet this requirement, and we therefore
will sustain this rejection.
In view of the fact that the separate patentability of claim 24, which depends from
claim 23, has not been argued, the rejection of claim 24 also is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007