Appeal No. 96-1293
Application 07/998,673
teachings of Ziegelman and Patena, appellant urges on page 11 of
the brief that these claims are patentable at least for the same
reasons as claim 1, and "further limitations which are not
apparent from the references." However, appellant does not
inform us of exactly what those further limitations are and how
they define the claimed subject matter over the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we find that appellant has not complied with
the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(iv). The
result is that claims 4 through 6 have not been separately argued
with any reasonable degree of specificity and must therefore be
considered to fall with claim 1 from which they depend.
Dependent claim 18 is likewise treated in this same manner since
appellant has again not provided a separate argument directed to
this claim.
As regards dependent claims 14 through 17, these claims
address details of a "transporting means" with which the
transportable pre-assembled building structure of claim 1 may be
associated so as to be moved from the factory to the site
where it is to be located. However, as pointed out by the
examiner (answer, page 4) claim 1 on appeal is directed to a
pre-assembled, relocatable building structure per se which "can
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007