Appeal 2007-2358
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,888
The Examiner has maintained the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1, 2, and 4 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Oestreich3.
(2) Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 have been rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Oestreich and Conti4.
Dura Line argues that the reexamination is improper because the
Examiner has failed to establish a substantial new question of patentability.
(Br. at 5.) On the merits, Dura Line contends that Oestreich fails to disclose
all the limitations of the claimed subject matter (id. at 7), and that Conti does
not provide any additional relevant teachings (id. at 12).
Because Dura Line has not argued the separate patentability of any
claims, including claims rejected over the combined teachings of Oestreich
and Conti, we consider only claim 1 and the rejection over Oestreich for
anticipation. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Any arguments not presented in
Dura Lines principal brief have been waived. Id.
B. Findings of Fact
The following findings of fact and any set out in the Discussion are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record.
3 Ulrich Oestreich, Conductor for Optical Cables, U.S. Patent 4,330,173,
issued 18 May 1982.
4 Allen C. Conti and Armond R. Conti, Method for Installing Cable Using
an Inner Duct, U.S. Patent 4,565,351, issued 21 January 1986.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013