Appeal No. 96-4021
Application 08/289,300
inner surface of the tubular portion and is slidable there along.
The appellant’s arguments (see pages 15 through 19 in the main
brief) that the combined teachings of the references would not
have suggested an armrest assembly having these particular
features is persuasive. The examiner’s conclusion to the
contrary (see pages 8 through 11 in the answer) is predicated on
an unreasonable interpretation of the relationship between
Hough’s stud 42 and tubular support arm 30.
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 35, 38, 41 and 44.
We shall also sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 36, 37, 40, which depend from independent claim 35, since
the appellant has not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with
claim 35 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). We shall not sustain, however, the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 46, 48, 52 and 53,
or of claims 54 through 58 which depend from claim 53.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007