Appeal No. 95-2880
Application 08/091,294
The rejections of independent claim 2 on the same grounds
also are sustained, inasmuch as the appellant has grouped claims
1 and 2 together. Furthermore, since the appellant has chosen
not to challenge with any reasonable specificity before this
Board the rejection of dependent claim 8, it is grouped with
independent claim 2, from which it depends, and falls therewith.
See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1526 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and adds thereto the
requirement that "the dispensing end of said mixer and the
mounting end of said attachment each have a respective, sealingly
engaging shoulder." The claim stands rejected as being obvious
over the same alternative sets of references as were applied
against claim 1. We agree with the appellant that this structure
is not taught by Colin, Yu, Yoshioka or Schneider, and therefore
we will not sustain either of the two rejections of claim 4.
Livingstone is added to the two alternative sets of
references discussed above in the rejection of claim 5, which
provides a sealing lip on one of the shoulders recited in claim
4. However, Livingstone does not alleviate the deficiencies in
the other references which caused us not to sustain the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007