Appeal No. 96-3031
Application 08/098,062
The prior art items relied upon by the examiner as evidence
of obviousness are:
Nance 5,269,387 Dec. 14, 1993
(filed Feb. 27, 1992)
The prior art roof bit insert discussed in lines 13 through 24 on
page 2 in the appellants’ specification (the admitted prior art
roof bit insert).
Claims 1, 2, 6 through 9, 13 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nance in view of the
admitted prior art roof bit insert.
Reference is made to the appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 16 and 18) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
17) for the respective viewpoints of the appellants and the
examiner with regard to the propriety of this rejection. Since 2
the appellants, stating that “[a]ll claims stand or fall
together” (main brief, page 4), have not argued separately the
patentability of any particular claim apart from the others, all
of the appealed claims shall stand or fall with representative
2In a footnote on page 5 in the main brief, the appellants
refer to an affidavit (actually a declaration), submitted on May
15, 1995 (Paper No. 12), containing data purportedly
“demonstrating the improved penetration rate obtained by the
presently claimed insert.” The examiner, however, has refused to
enter the declaration into the record (see the advisory action
dated May 24, 1995, Paper No. 14). Accordingly, we have not
considered the declaration in reviewing the merits of the
rejection on appeal.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007