Appeal No. 97-2713
Application 08/373,069
rejection of claim 8. We will also sustain the § 103 rejection
of dependent claim 25 because the patentability of this claim
has not been argued separately of claims 1 and 8. See Nielson,
816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528 and Burckel, 592 F.2d 1178-
79, 201 USPQ at 70.
We cannot, however, sustain the § 103 rejection of claim
21. The applied references are devoid of any suggestion of
providing Barkley’s hydraulic rams 58 with conduits for any
purpose, let alone the purpose recited in claim 21.
Turning now to the § 103 rejection of claims 4, 5 and 7,
appellant merely argues that these claims are patentable for
the reasons previously stated with respect to the Douglas and
Laukien references. Those arguments were not persuasive when
first considered and are not persuasive now for the reasons
discussed supra. Accordingly, we will sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 4, 5 and 7.
However, we cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of claims
22 and 23. With regard to claim 22, the applied references are
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007